Case: 20-1368 Document: 53 Page: 1 Filed: 09/01/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MIKE D. SHOFFIETT, SR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
JIM GOODE, SR., DALE GOODE,
Defendants
MARY GOODE, BETTY GOODE, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS EXECUTRIX ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE
OF DALE GOODE, FIBERLENE LLC,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2020-1368
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana in No. 6:18-cv-01545-MJJ-
CBW.
______________________
Decided: September 1, 2020
______________________
MIKE D. SHOFFIETT, SR., Rayne, LA, pro se.
PAMELA HARPER, Minifield & Harper, Minden, LA, for
defendant-appellee Betty Goode.
Case: 20-1368 Document: 53 Page: 2 Filed: 09/01/2020
2 SHOFFIETT v. GOODE
APRIL L. ROLEN-OGDEN, Liskow & Lewis, PC, Lafa-
yette, LA, for defendants-appellees Mary Goode, Fiberlene
LLC.
______________________
Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK and HUGHES, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Mike Shoffiett, Sr., appeals the decision of the United
States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdic-
tion and failure to state a claim. Because we agree that
Mr. Shoffiett does not state a claim upon which relief can
be granted, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Shoffiett is the assignee of U.S. Patent
No. 4,904,288 (“the ’288 Patent”). The patent is directed to
reusable air filter assemblies for use in heating and cooling
systems. In 1994, Mr. Shoffiett allowed the ’288 Patent to
expire for nonpayment of maintenance fees because, ac-
cording to Mr. Shoffiett, he discovered a way to improve the
claimed air filter system. Mr. Shoffiett did not obtain a pa-
tent on the updated filter design, but sold filters embodying
the improved design through his company, Fiberlene Fil-
ters, Inc. (“Fiberlene”).
In 2003, Mr. Shoffiett sold two-thirds of Fiberlene’s as-
sets to Dale and Jim Goode through a Purchase Agreement
(“2003 Purchase Agreement”). The parties then formed Fi-
berlene Filters, LLC (“Fiberlene LLC”) to conduct the busi-
ness. However, the business relationship between the
parties soured when Jim Goode discovered that
Mr. Shoffiett had allowed the ’288 Patent to expire before
the execution of the 2003 Purchase Agreement. Jim Goode
then ceased doing business with Mr. Shoffiett and applied
for, and was granted, U.S. Patent. No. 8,062,403 (“the ’403
Case: 20-1368 Document: 53 Page: 3 Filed: 09/01/2020
SHOFFIETT v. GOODE 3
Patent”) for “Filter Elements for Circulating Air Systems.”
Mr. Shoffiett asserts that the ’403 Patent incorporated his
improved filter design.
Mr. Shoffiett brought suit against Dale Goode, Jim
Goode, and Fiberlene LLC in Louisiana state court, alleg-
ing patent infringement, patent fraud, trade secret misap-
propriation, and breach of contract. Mike D. Shoffiett, Sr.
et al. v. Fiberlene Filters, L.L.C. et al., No. 2014-10921-J,
15th J.D.C., Parish of Acadia, State of Louisiana.
Mr. Shoffiett claimed that Jim and Dale Goode had vio-
lated the terms of the 2003 Purchase Agreement by failing
to make required payments and refusing to acknowledge
Mr. Shoffiett’s partial ownership of the joint entity, and
that Jim Goode had improperly incorporated
Mr. Shoffiett’s trade secret filter design in the ’403 Patent.
On October 22, 2018, the state court dismissed
Mr. Shoffiett’s patent infringement claim without preju-
dice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court sub-
sequently granted Jim Goode and Fiberlene LLC’s motion
for summary judgment on all remaining state-law claims
against them. Mr. Shoffiett additionally settled and
agreed to dismiss with prejudice all claims against Dale
Goode and his estate.
During the pendency of the state court action,
Mr. Shoffiett filed the present suit against Jim and Mary
Goode and Dale and Betty Goode in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana. When Mr. Shoffiett
filed an amended complaint, however, he only listed “Jim
Goode SR, Heirs & Assigns,” “Fiberlene LLC,” and “Betty
Goode Wife/Executor of Dale Goode (Deceased)” as defend-
ants. The amended complaint alleged “patent fraud,” trade
secret misappropriation, patent infringement, and breach
of contract claims. The complaint makes it clear the “pa-
tent fraud” claim is encompassed in Mr. Shoffiett’s claim
for trade secret misappropriation.
Case: 20-1368 Document: 53 Page: 4 Filed: 09/01/2020
4 SHOFFIETT v. GOODE
The district court granted the defendants’ motions to
dismiss, holding that Mr. Shoffiett had no enforceable pa-
tent rights and therefore could not assert a patent infringe-
ment claim and that his other claims were barred by res
judicata because the Louisiana state court dismissed the
claims against Fiberlene LLC and resolved the claims
against Dale Goode and his estate. 1 Mr. Shoffiett appeals.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
DISCUSSION
We review a district court’s dismissal for failure to
state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction de
novo. Del-Ray Battery Co. v. Douglas Battery Co.,
635 F.3d
725, 728 (5th Cir. 2011).
While Mr. Shoffiett’s complaint is difficult to under-
stand, it appears to assert a patent infringement claim.
However, the ’288 Patent expired in 1994. When a patent
expires, “the patentee’s prerogatives expire too, and the
right to make or use the article, free from all restriction,
passes to the public.” Kimble v. Marvel Ent., LLC,
576 U.S.
446, 451 (2015). Accordingly, the district court properly de-
termined that Mr. Shoffiett had no enforceable patent
rights and could not state a claim for patent infringement.
Although the district court also found that it lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over Mr. Shoffiett’s patent claim, we
1 The district court also found that Mary Goode and
Betty Goode were not properly named defendants because
Mr. Shoffiett did not make any allegations against them in
their individual capacities and because Mary Goode was
not a named defendant in the amended complaint. The dis-
trict court separately dismissed the action as to Jim Goode,
Sr.’s estate for failure to prosecute under local rule 41.3.
Mr. Shoffiett does not challenge these determinations on
appeal.
Case: 20-1368 Document: 53 Page: 5 Filed: 09/01/2020
SHOFFIETT v. GOODE 5
find the dismissal is more properly for failure to state a
claim.
As the district court held, Mr. Shoffiett’s remaining
claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Claim
preclusion bars “successive litigation of the very same
claim, whether or not relitigation of the claim raises the
same issues as the earlier suit.” New Hampshire v. Maine,
532 U.S. 742, 748 (2001). The preclusive effect of a state-
court judgment in a subsequent federal lawsuit is deter-
mined by applying the preclusion law of the state that ren-
dered the judgment. Enovsys LLC v. Nextel Commc’ns,
Inc.,
614 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Here, Mr. Shoffiett’s patent fraud, trade secret misap-
propriation, and breach of contract claims advanced
against Dale Goode’s estate and Fiberlene LLC are the
same claims advanced, and resolved, in the state court lit-
igation. We therefore affirm the district court’s determina-
tion that Mr. Shoffiett’s state-law claims are barred under
the doctrine of res judicata. See Burguieres v. Pollingue,
843 So. 2d 1049, 1053 (La. 2003) (discussing when res judi-
cata applies under Louisiana law).
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
