Glassey et al v. Microsemi Inc et al, No. 3:2014cv03629 - Document 185 (N.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS, STRIKING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, DENYING ALL PENDING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND VACATING ALL HEARINGS by Judge Alsup re 118 Motion ; 122 Motion for Judgment ; 123 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; 137 Motion to Quash; 138 Motion ; 139 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; 141 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; 142 Motion to Dismiss; 153 Motion to Dismiss. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2014)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Glassey et al v. Microsemi Inc et al Doc. 185 1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 TODD S. GLASSEY and MICHAEL E. MCNEIL, Plaintiffs, 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 No. C 14-03629 WHA v. MICROSEMI INC, US GOVERNMENT, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, GOVERNOR BROWN, THE IETF AND THE INTERNET SOCIETY, APPLE INC., CISCO INC., EBAY INC., PAYPAL INC., GOOGLE INC., JUNIPER NETWORKS, MICROSOFT CORP., NETFLIX INC., ORACLE INC., MARK HASTINGS, ERIK VAN DER KAAY, AND THALES GROUP, and “UNSERVED” DOES, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS, STRIKING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, DENYING ALL PENDING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND VACATING HEARINGS Defendants. / 17 18 Two pro se plaintiffs seek to obtain millions of dollars in damages for the “largest fraud 19 loss in history” based on allegations they say “sounded Looney originally.” Nevertheless, they 20 have sued more than twenty defendants, including the United States. Plaintiffs claim to own the 21 intellectual property rights to “a part of virtually all networking systems in use globally” and that 22 their rights “control most online commerce in the US today.” 23 A week after filing their second amended complaint, plaintiffs filed six “dispositive” 24 motions, including a motion to take a multi-trillion dollar loss on their 2014 taxes and a motion to 25 assign themselves patent rights they admit they do not own. 26 Having reviewed the more than 1,000 pages larded in the record by plaintiffs, this order 27 rules as follows. For the reasons stated herein, all claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 28 The motions to dismiss are GRANTED. All of plaintiffs’ motions are DENIED. * * * Dockets.Justia.com Pro se plaintiffs are Todd Glassey and Michael McNeil.* Defendants include the United 1 2 States, the “State of California,” individuals, and many technology companies — including, 3 Apple Inc., Cisco Inc., eBay Inc., Google Inc., Juniper Networks Inc., Microsemi Inc., Microsoft 4 Corp., Netflix Inc., Oracle Corp., PayPal Inc., and more. The United States has appeared and at 5 least seven law firms were retained for this matter. 6 In essence, to the extent comprehensible, the eighty-page second amended complaint 7 alleged that plaintiffs assigned their intellectual property rights to an entity called Datum Inc. in 8 1999 via two settlement agreements. Defendant Microsemi Corp. is now the assignee of the 9 patents referenced in the second amended complaint. After the settlement agreements were signed — approximately seven years later — 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 plaintiffs commenced a lawsuit in Santa Cruz Superior Court, alleging malpractice, breach of 12 contract, and other claims arising from the settlement agreements. Plaintiffs then voluntarily 13 dismissed the lawsuit. McNeil, et al. v. Symmetricom, Inc., No. CV-165643 (Santa Cruz Sup. 14 Ct.). 15 Plaintiffs subsequently commenced a new lawsuit in federal court. Glassey, et al. v. 16 Symmetricom, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-04662-NC (N.D. Cal.) (Judge Nat Cousins). That action was 17 voluntarily dismissed as well, after an order to show cause regarding subject-matter jurisdiction 18 was issued. 19 Pro se plaintiffs later commenced this action. Their motion for a “three-judge panel” was 20 denied. Six defendants then moved to dismiss and in an October 2014 order, the first amended 21 complaint was stricken. Plaintiffs were given one more chance to plead their best and most 22 plausible case. They were warned that failure to cure the identified deficiencies could result in 23 dismissal with prejudice (Dkt. No. 109). The initial case management conference was vacated. 24 25 26 27 28 * Mr. Glassey has commenced several actions in our district. See, e.g., Glassey v. Amano Corp., et al., No. 04-05142 (N.D. Cal. Bankr.) (Judge Marilyn Morgan); Glassey v. National Institute of Standards & Technologies, et al., No. 5:04-cv-02522-JW (N.D. Cal.) (Judge James Ware); Glassey v. Amano Corporation, et al., No. 5:05-cv-01604-RMW (N.D. Cal.) (Judge Ronald Whyte); Glassey v. D-Link Corporation, No. 4:06-cv-06128-PJH (N.D. Cal.) (Judge Phyllis Hamilton); Glassey, et al. v. Symmetricom, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-04662-NC (N.D. Cal.) (Judge Nat Cousins). 2 1 An eighty-page second amended complaint was then filed. A week later, plaintiffs filed 2 six motions. Defendant Internet Society filed a motion to dismiss. Both sides were then invited 3 to show cause regarding whether the second amended complaint should (or should not) be 4 stricken. Defendant Microsemi, Inc. then filed a motion to dismiss. 5 6 In response to the order to show cause, plaintiffs, the United States, and the other defendants (who have appeared) each filed briefs. This order rules as follows. 7 1. 8 Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. A prior order denied the original motion for a three-judge 9 panel (Dkt. No. 70). Now, plaintiffs move again for a three-judge panel. As stated before, no three-judge panel is required. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 RENEWED MOTION FOR THREE-JUDGE PANEL. 2. 12 Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. Plaintiffs move to quash “any existing Intelligence or MOTION TO QUASH FISA OR RELATED WARRANTS. 13 Internationally issued FISA or Intelligence Warrants” concerning various “intellectual property.” 14 Plaintiffs do not know if any warrants exist, they forthrightly admit. They instead speculate that 15 “treason” has occurred and that there is a “seditious conspiracy” by various foreign governments 16 to refuse to open fraud investigations, and that there “could” be interference with potential 17 attorney-client relationships. The United States filed an opposition brief (Dkt. No. 158). 18 No motion to quash “FISA or related warrants” could possibly be justified on this record. 19 The Supreme Court has stated in the FISA context that a mere speculative chain of possibilities 20 does not suffice to establish Article III standing. Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, — U.S. 21 —, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 1150 (2013). Plaintiffs’ theory, to the extent comprehensible, is farfetched. 22 Their contention that it is possible that FISA warrants may exist and that those warrants (if they 23 exist) were issued to an unidentified “attorney” which then could create a “conflict of interest” 24 that offends the Constitution is rejected. 25 3. 26 Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. Plaintiffs move to take a multi-trillion dollar “fraud loss” on MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE “FRAUD LOSS.” 27 their 2014 taxes based on “loss of access” to their “intellectual property rights” based on 28 “abandoned” patent applications allegedly filed in foreign countries. Plaintiffs point to online 3 1 “printouts” from patent offices in Europe, South Africa, Japan, Brazil, Korea, Canada, and 2 Australia. Plaintiffs’ requests for judicial notice, which were not properly authenticated, are 3 DENIED. The United States responds that plaintiffs’ motion should be denied because (1) there is no 4 5 jurisdiction; (2) there is no evidence the United States waived its sovereign immunity; (3) 6 plaintiffs’ motion was procedurally improper because it was filed before any defendant answered 7 the complaint; and (4) the bare motion lacked any sworn and authenticated support. 8 9 None of the relief demanded by plaintiffs is granted. This Court lacks jurisdiction over the “tax” matter plaintiffs brought. Since the United States Attorney is already aware of this motion, it will not be referred to their office. The United States Attorney may forward a copy of 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 plaintiffs’ filings and this order to the Internal Revenue Service and any other agencies as 12 appropriate. Plaintiffs’ motion to take a “fraud loss” on their 2014 taxes is DENIED. 13 4. 14 Plaintiffs state that docket number 123 “replaces” docket number 118. Nevertheless, both 15 MOTION TO VOID THE DDI AND TTI SETTLEMENTS. briefs have been read. 16 Plaintiffs move to award themselves “full custody” of two United States patents by 17 moving to “void” the settlement agreements they signed more than fifteen years ago. In short 18 (based on the unauthenticated settlement agreements filed by plaintiffs), in the “DDI settlement,” 19 in exchange for $300,000, plaintiffs agreed to assign all rights, title, and interest in the 20 “Controlling Access Patent” and patent application to Datum, Inc. Plaintiffs also granted Datum 21 a non-exclusive, irrevocable worldwide license to the “Phase II Technology and derivative 22 thereof” with rights to sublicense (Dkt. No. 121-3). In the “TTI settlement,” in exchange for 23 royalties for the years 2000 through 2002, plaintiffs agreed to disclaim any ownership in or rights 24 to the “Protected Technology,” a term defined at length in the settlement agreement (Dkt. No. 25 121-2). 26 To “void” these two settlement agreements, plaintiffs reference two decisions: Gellman v. 27 Telular Corp., 449 F. App’x 941, 945 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and Talbot v. Quaker-State Oil Ref. Co., 28 104 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. 1939). Plaintiffs’ reliance on Gellman and Talbot is misplaced. 4 1 In Gellman (an unpublished decision), the Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of 2 standing. Plaintiff’s late husband was a named co-inventor of the asserted patent. Because all of 3 the legal owners of the asserted patent were not parties to the action and plaintiff’s evidence of 4 sole ownership was “thin and unsupportive,” dismissal was proper. Here too, plaintiffs lack 5 standing to assert patent infringement. (More on this below.) In Talbot (a non-binding decision from 1939), the Third Circuit affirmed dismissal 6 7 because of res judicata. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had previously held that one joint 8 owner of a patent had the power to grant a license to the patent without the consent of the other 9 co-owner. That judgment was binding in the later-filed federal lawsuit. Neither Gellman nor Talbot support “voiding” the two settlement agreements here. Defendant Microsemi states that it is the current assignee, the “sole owner and the only 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 party permitted to enforce the two patents at issue” (Opp. 1). It argues that plaintiffs’ motion 13 should be denied because (1) plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the four-year statute of limitations; 14 (2) the second amended complaint relied on the validity of the two settlement agreements 15 plaintiffs now seek to “void;” (3) no rescission claim was pled in the second amended complaint; 16 and (4) plaintiffs’ motion was procedurally improper because it was filed before any defendant 17 answered the complaint and before the initial case management conference (Dkt. No. 148). No reasonable juror could find that the settlement agreements plaintiffs signed in 1999 18 19 should be “voided” based on the record presented. Indeed, no notice of this “claim for relief” was 20 provided in the second amended complaint and none of plaintiffs arguments is persuasive. Even 21 if plaintiffs never received a “countersigned copy” of the settlement agreements for “12 and 3/4 22 years,” plaintiffs sued to enforce those agreements back in 2009. The statute of limitations has 23 passed. 24 25 Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. To the extent not relied upon, Microsemi’s requests for judicial notice are DENIED AS MOOT. 26 5. 27 Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. Plaintiffs move to add themselves as named inventors to a 28 MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF PATENT INVENTORSHIP. patent and to “reassign” that patent and “all published instances of it” to themselves. As “proof,” 5 1 plaintiffs argue that the “existence” of their settlement agreements (the very same agreements 2 they sought to “void” above) purportedly supports removing the named inventors and making 3 plaintiffs the sole inventors. 4 Defendant Microsemi argues that (1) plaintiffs’ inventorship claim is barred by laches 5 since the relevant patent issued in 2002; (2) there is no clear and convincing evidence that 6 plaintiffs contributed to conception of the claimed invention; (3) plaintiffs provided no proof that 7 “all published instances” of the patent should be “reassigned” to them; and (4) plaintiffs’ motion 8 was procedurally improper because it was filed before any defendant answered the complaint and 9 before the initial case management conference (Dkt. No. 156). There is no evidence in the record, let alone clear and convincing evidence, supporting the 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 relief demanded by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. To the extent not relied upon, 12 Microsemi’s requests for judicial notice are DENIED AS MOOT. 13 6. MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE “PERFORMANCE RIGHTS.” 14 Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED. To the extent comprehensible, plaintiffs seek “full 15 PERFORMANCE RIGHTS STANDING against the execution of any program derived from an 16 IETF Standard containing Plaintiffs’ PHASE-II IPs” (Br. 2). Plaintiffs argue that the Internet 17 Engineering Task Force (“IETF”) is a “rogue state,” who published standards used by technology 18 companies, including Apple, Google, Cisco, Microsoft, Oracle, Juniper Networks, and so forth. 19 Plaintiffs seek copyright protection over the IETF’s publications. 20 Defendant Internet Society is a non-profit corporation and the IETF is an “organized 21 activity” within it — not a legal entity — defendant clarifies. In any event, Internet Society 22 argues that no relief can be provided for plaintiffs’ bare motion, which was unsupported by 23 specific sworn facts. In pertinent part, Internet Society argues that (1) the second amended 24 complaint failed to allege ownership in any identifiable copyrighted work and (2) plaintiffs failed 25 to identify any specific publication or standard promulgated by defendant. The “narratives” 26 plaintiffs larded into the record in no way support the relief demanded, says defendant. Internet 27 Society also argues that plaintiffs should be ordered to show cause why they should not be 28 6 1 declared a vexatious litigant. (No motion to declare plaintiffs a vexatious litigant has been 2 brought.) 3 None of the relief demanded by plaintiffs is warranted by this record. Plaintiffs have not 4 shown any specific sworn evidence that they “own” the Internet Society’s publications. 5 Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. 6 7. 7 Months have passed and plaintiffs have utterly failed to file a pleading that states a DISMISSAL OF THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. 8 plausible claim. None of plaintiffs’ pleadings (Dkt. Nos. 1, 6, 112) satisfied Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 9 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Plaintiffs are now on their second amended complaint, after their prior pleading was stricken for a 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 multitude of defects. At that time, plaintiffs were warned that failure to plead their best and most 12 plausible case could result in dismissal with prejudice (Dkt. No. 109). 13 It is now hopeless to continue with this lawsuit. There are too many fundamental 14 problems with plaintiffs’ pleading so only a few will be called out now. First, plaintiffs have 15 failed to establish that the United States has waived its sovereign immunity, or that they have 16 standing to sue the United States. Second, plaintiffs lack standing to assert patent infringement 17 for even they concede that they do not own the asserted patents. Third, plaintiffs’ claims are 18 time-barred. Most, if not all, of plaintiffs’ claims date back to the 1990s and early 2000s. The 19 statute of limitations has long passed. Fourth, the second amended complaint failed to allege 20 antitrust injury. 21 Having considered plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, plaintiffs’ oppositions to the 22 motions to dismiss, and plaintiffs’ response to the order to show cause, this order finds that 23 granting leave to amend would be futile. Plaintiffs have failed to cure the multitude of defects 24 previously identified, despite having had an opportunity to review the then-pending six motions 25 to dismiss and the prior order striking the complaint. Twenty defendants, including the United 26 States, and seven law firms should not be dragged into incurring the expense of this hopeless and 27 utterly frivolous lawsuit. Accordingly, defendants’ motions to dismiss and to strike the second 28 amended complaint are GRANTED. 7 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons stated herein, all of plaintiffs’ motions are DENIED. To the extent not 3 relied upon, all of plaintiffs’ requests for judicial notice are DENIED. The second amended 4 complaint is hereby STRICKEN. The entire action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All hearings 5 herein (i.e., January 8, 15, and 29) are hereby VACATED. Judgment shall be entered in a separate 6 order. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: December 29, 2014. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
