Valentina Pulnikova v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
VALENTINA PULNIKOVA,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-2299
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-01664-KCD, Judge Kathryn C. Davis.
______________________
Decided: August 9, 2024
______________________
VALENTINA P ULNIKOVA, Villingen-Schwenningen, Ger-
many, pro se.
K AVYASRI N AGUMOTU, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
S COTT D AVID B OLDEN, BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CONRAD J OSEPH
D EWITTE, J R.
______________________
Before P ROST , CLEVENGER , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-2299 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 08/09/2024

-- 1 of 5 --

PULNIKOVA v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Plaintiff Valentina Pulnikova, proceeding pro se, ap-
peals from an order of the Court of Federal Claims dismiss-
ing her complaint against the United States and the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Dr. Pulni-
kova alleges various falsifications in connection with the
processing of her patent applications, contending these
amount to violations of her rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The trial court granted the government’s motion to dismiss
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, based on its conclu-
sion that the court did not have jurisdiction over § 1983 ac-
tions or other allegations sounding in tort. On appeal, Dr.
Pulnikova contends that the Court of Federal Claims com-
mitted several procedural errors, that an implied contract
existed between her and the PTO, that her tort claims arise
from breach of that contract, and that the court does have
jurisdiction over § 1983 claims. We agree with the Court
of Federal Claims that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction
and, accordingly, affirm its dismissal of Dr. Pulnikova’s
complaint.
I
Dr. Pulnikova is the named inventor on four issued
U.S. patents. According to Dr. Pulnikova’s complaint, ob-
taining these patents took more than 12 years. During
prosecution, examiners issued several office actions, all of
which Dr. Pulnikova responded to and some of which she
appealed. Dr. Pulnikova alleges that various individuals
at the PTO “falsif[ied] the examination of [her] inventions
under cover of legal authority” and thereby “violated US
patent law.” S. App’x 1015.1 She further contends that she
suffered emotional distress as a consequence. The
1 References to S. App’x refer to the Supplemental
Appendix submitted by the government.
Case: 23-2299 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 08/09/2024

-- 2 of 5 --

PULNIKOVA v. US 3
complaint expressly states that her claims arise under 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
The government filed a motion to dismiss Dr. Pulni-
kova’s complaint pursuant to Rule of the Court of Federal
Claims 12(b)(1), contending that the trial court lacked sub-
ject-matter jurisdiction because her claims arise under
§ 1983 and other claims sound in tort. Dr. Pulnikova re-
sponded that the court does have jurisdiction over § 1983
claims but, in any event, what the government construed
as tort claims were actually contract claims. The Court of
Federal Claims concluded it was well-settled that it lacked
jurisdiction over § 1983 claims and tort claims, and that
Dr. Pulnikova failed to make a non-frivolous allegation of
the existence of a contract between herself and the PTO.
Thus, the court granted the government’s motion and dis-
missed the complaint.
Dr. Pulnikova filed a timely appeal, over which we have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
II
We review the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of a
complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction de novo.
Acevedo v. United States, 824 F.3d 1365, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
2016). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing sub-
ject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.
See Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d
746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
III
Dr. Pulnikova insists, as she did in the trial court, that
the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over her
§ 1983 claims. She is incorrect, as we have explained on
prior occasions. See, e.g., Drake v. United States, 792 F.
App’x 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Ajamian v. United States,
609 F. App’x 652, 654 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Nor does the Court
of Federal Claims have jurisdiction over her claims sound-
ing in tort. See Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623
Case: 23-2299 Document: 31 Page: 3 Filed: 08/09/2024

-- 3 of 5 --

PULNIKOVA v. US 4
(Fed. Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). As such, the Court
of Federal Claims correctly determined that it lacked juris-
diction.
Dr. Pulnikova contends that, in any event, her claims
are actually breach-of-contract claims, over which the
Court of Federal Claims has subject matter jurisdiction
even if it lacks jurisdiction over § 1983 claims. Tucker Act
“jurisdiction extends only to contracts either express or im-
plied in fact, and not to claims on contracts implied in law.”
Hercules, Inc. v. United States, 516 U.S. 417, 423 (1996).
But Dr. Pulnikova fails to make a non-frivolous allegation
of the existence of any contract between herself and the
PTO, express or implied. Instead, as the Court of Federal
Claims correctly found, Dr. Pulnikova at most made a con-
clusory, frivolous allegation of an “agreement” with the
PTO to examine her applications. S. App’x 1015-16. She
asserts nothing more than “a mutual desire to carry out an
examination of my inventions,” in the normal and ordinary
course of PTO operations. Opening Br. at 9. Dr. Pulnikova
cites no authority for the extraordinary proposition that
one’s interest in the government operating in compliance
with its statutory, regulatory, and other legal obligations
creates a contract with the government, giving rise to
Tucker Act jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims, and
we are aware of none.
Finally, Pulnikova does not show any harmful error in
how the Court of Federal Claims handled her complaint.
As the government points out, the trial court actually ac-
cepted and considered all of the documents she submitted.
None of them transformed, or could have transformed, her
claims into different causes of action over which the Court
of Federal Claims would have had subject-matter jurisdic-
tion.
IV
We have considered Dr. Pulnikova’s other arguments
and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm the
Case: 23-2299 Document: 31 Page: 4 Filed: 08/09/2024

-- 4 of 5 --

PULNIKOVA v. US 5
Court of Federal Claims’ order dismissing Dr. Pulnikova’s
complaint.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 23-2299 Document: 31 Page: 5 Filed: 08/09/2024

-- 5 of 5 --