2017/03/22 - OTHER - (NA) - Note (75)

Home Browse Search

No. 03-2741 Page 2 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Cycenas then appealed to the Federal Circuit arguing that the defendants had infringed his "patent" rights. The Federal Circuit stated that it had no jurisdiction to.review.the appeal because`Cycenas had failed to allege in the district court that the defendants had infringed a patented invention, see 28 U.S.C. § 271; 35 U.S.C. § 1338(a), and transferred the case to us, see 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Cycenas argues that the district court erred by dismissing his case for lack of jurisdiction because his case either presents a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or arises under the patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). He is mistaken. Cycenas's first asserted basis for jurisdiction fails because a dispute involving rights in a piece of land does not present a federal question simply because ownership of that land is claimed under a grant from the United States government. See Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 676-77 (1974); Wisconsin v. Baker, 698 F.2d 1323, 1327 (7th Cir. 1983). His second asserted basis—that the defendants have infringed a patent, see 35 U.S.C. § 271--confuses a "land patent" with a "patent" right. A patent must concern a "new and useful process, machine,. manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." 35 U.S.C. § 101. Cycenas has not alleged that he has any such patented invention, and his purported land patent plainly does not qualify. The district court correctly dismissed this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.. AFFIRMED.