Ronald R. Shea v. DIRECTOR FOR PATENTS, In the capacity as representative of the United States Patent…

11-56947Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFeb 14, 2013

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD R. SHEA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR FOR PATENTS, In the
capacity as representative of the United
States Patent Office,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-56947
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02075-DMG-SS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Ronald Shea, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s order
dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his Federal Tort Claims Act
FILED
FEB 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

(“FTCA”) action arising from the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s
(“USPTO”) initial processing of a patent application. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Chamberlin v. Isen, 779 F.2d 522, 523 (9th
Cir. 1985), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Shea’s action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction because the United States is immune from liability under the
“discretionary function” exception to the FTCA. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a); see also
Chamberlin, 779 F.2d at 523-26 (holding that FTCA’s discretionary function
exception shields the United States from tort liability for USPTO employees’
processing and examination of patent applications in light of “the overall scheme
providing for discretionary examination of patent applications” and “the public
policy implications of patent examining”). Contrary to Shea’s contentions, 35
U.S.C. § 132(a) does not warrant a different conclusion. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 131,
132(a); Chamberlin, 779 F.2d at 524-25.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.