Michael J. House v. General Electric Company, Ge Aviation, Ge Aerospace, Cfm International, American…

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MICHAEL J. HOUSE,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GE AVIATION,
GE AEROSPACE, CFM INTERNATIONAL,
AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP INC., SOUTHWEST
AIRLINES CO., DELTA AIR LINES, INC., UNITED
AIRLINES HOLDINGS INC., JETBLUE AIRWAYS
INC., SPIRIT AIRLINES, LLC, FKA SPIRIT
AIRLINES, INC., EASTERN AIRLINES LLC,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2025-1294
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York in No. 1:23-cv-00071-LDH-
LB, Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall.
______________________
Decided: October 22, 2025
______________________
M ICHAEL J. H OUSE, Lathrup Village, MI, pro se.
O LEG K HARITON , Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Cincinnati,
OH, for defendants-appellees General Electric Company,
Case: 25-1294 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 10/22/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

HOUSE v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 2
GE Aviation, GE Aerospace, CFM International, South-
west Airlines Co., Delta Air Lines, Inc., United Airlines
Holdings Inc., JetBlue Airways Inc.
CALLIE SAND , Greenberg Traurig LLP, Chicago, IL, for
defendant-appellee American Airlines Group Inc.
JOHN NEUKOM, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, San Fran-
cisco, CA, for defendant-appellee Spirit Airlines, LLC. Also
represented by D ANIEL SILVERMAN .
BRADLEY R. H ELSTEN , Zumpano Patricios & Helsten,
LLC, Holladay, UT, for defendant-appellee Eastern Air-
lines LLC.
______________________
Before D YK , H UGHES, and STARK , Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM.
Michael J. House appeals pro se a decision of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, dismissing his complaint for patent infringe-
ment. See House v. General Elec. Co., No. 23-cv-00071,
2024 WL 4350665 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2024) (“Decision”).
For the following reasons, we affirm.
I
Mr. House owns U.S. Patent No. 7,140,873 (the
“’873 patent”).1 The patent is generally directed at a pro-
cess for “pretreating ALL FUELS prior to combustion” that
“will allow ALL FUELS to burn more cleanly and effi-
ciently and will promote optimum combustion.”
1 The ’873 patent application was filed on March 1,
1999, and the patent expired
December 31, 2018, for non-payment of maintenance fees.
Case: 25-1294 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 10/22/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

HOUSE v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 3
’873 patent, Abstract. The claims recite multiple steps for
this fuel pretreatment. ’873 patent, col. 29 l. 2 to col. 30
l. 22.
On January 3, 2023, Mr. House filed a complaint
against appellees2 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, alleging that seven of ap-
pellees’ engines infringed the ’873 patent. The district
court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) without leave to amend. Decision at *5.
The court agreed with appellees that Mr. House did not
provide any allegations explaining how appellees’ accused
engines performed the steps articulated in the ’873 patent.
Id. at *4. It further determined that any amendment
would be futile. Id. at *5.
Mr. House appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).3
On September 2, 2025, while this appeal was pending,
Spirit Airlines filed its second Notice of Suggestion of
Bankruptcy and Automatic Stay of Appeal. Dkt. No. 39.
The court subsequently stayed the appeal as to Spirit Air-
lines and issued an order directing the parties to inform the
court on how they believed this appeal should proceed.
Dkt. No. 41. The non-debtor appellees responded request-
ing that the court issue its final decision as to them. Dkt.
2 Appellees are aircraft engine manufacturers, Gen-
eral Electric Co., GE Aviation, GE Aerospace, and CFM In-
ternational as well as their airline customers American
Airlines Group Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., Delta Air
Lines, Inc., United Airlines Holdings Inc., JetBlue Airways
Corp., Eastern Airlines LLC, and Spirit Airlines, LLC f/k/a
Spirit Airlines, Inc.
3 Mr. House filed his notice of appeal one week after
the deadline for appeal, but the district court subsequently
granted his motion for an extension of the appeal deadline.
Case: 25-1294 Document: 43 Page: 3 Filed: 10/22/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

HOUSE v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 4
No. 42. Spirit Airlines and appellant Mr. House did not
respond to the order.
We agree that the final decision should issue. How-
ever, in view of Spirit Airlines’s bankruptcy proceedings,
this decision applies only to the non-debtor appellees. The
case remains stayed as to Spirit Airlines.
II
We review the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dis-
miss de novo. See AlexSam, Inc. v. Aetna, Inc.,
119 F.4th 27, 34 (Fed. Cir. 2024). To determine whether a
claim is plausible on its face, we “accept[] the material fac-
tual allegations in the complaint and draw[] all reasonable
inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Id. (quoting Ottah
v. Fiat Chrysler, 884 F.3d 1135, 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The
complaint of a pro se plaintiff is to be construed liberally,
but the pro se plaintiff “must still meet minimal standards
to avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).” Ottah, 884 F.3d
at 1141.
On appeal, Mr. House only challenges the dismissal of
the complaint as a violation of his Seventh Amendment
right to a jury trial. See Appellant’s Br. 1–3. It is well es-
tablished that the Seventh Amendment provides a right to
a jury trial only where a plaintiff has demonstrated a tria-
ble issue of fact. See Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v. United
States, 187 U.S. 315, 319–20 (1902); Shore v. Parklane Ho-
siery Co., 565 F.2d 815, 819 (2d. Cir. 1977), aff’d 439 U.S.
322, 336 (1979). None exists here. Even liberally constru-
ing Mr. House’s complaint and accepting alleged facts as
true, the complaint does not plausibly allege that the ap-
pellees infringe the ’873 patent.
While a patentee need not prove his case at the plead-
ing stage or plead infringement on an element-by-element
basis, he also “cannot assert a plausible claim for infringe-
ment . . . by reciting the claim elements and merely
Case: 25-1294 Document: 43 Page: 4 Filed: 10/22/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

HOUSE v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 5
concluding that the accused product has those elements.”
Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am., 4 F.4th 1342, 1353
(Fed. Cir. 2021). Instead, “[t]here must be some factual al-
legations that, when taken as true, articulate why it is
plausible that the accused product infringes the patent
claim.” Id. Mr. House does not dispute that he did not pro-
vide any allegations of how appellees’ accused engines per-
form the fuel processing claims of the ’873 patent. The
complaint included a claim chart for only two of the seven
accused engines, and even then the claim charts only iden-
tified general features of the engines as well as general
press statements, without an adequate, non-conclusory ex-
planation of how these features and press statements re-
lated to alleged infringement of the ’873 patent claims.
Just as a claim chart is “not required . . . to avoid dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(6), AlexSam, 119 F.4th at 42, neither is
the attachment of a merely conclusory claim chart suffi-
cient to avoid dismissal. Mr. House’s complaint thus fails
to plausibly plead a claim for relief, and there are no triable
issues of fact implicating the constitutional protections of
the Seventh Amendment.
We have considered Mr. House’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1294 Document: 43 Page: 5 Filed: 10/22/2025

-- 5 of 5 --