Perry v. USPTO (Fed. Cir. 23-1812): Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal
Pro se applicant Michael A. Perry sued the USPTO and multiple named examiners, alleging infringement in connection with patent application US15/382598. After 942 days of proceedings, the Federal Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed the Eastern District of Virginia’s dismissal of the complaint.
Pro se patent applicant’s Federal Circuit appeal ends in full affirmance
Michael A. Perry, proceeding pro se from Apartment 203, filed suit against the United States Patent & Trademark Office, then-Director Katherine K. Vidal, and a range of named USPTO officials and examiners — including Kristine Clarette Matter, Laura Martin, Darnell Jayne, and others — in the Eastern District of Virginia. The action was framed as an infringement claim relating to patent application US15/382598, published as US20180235408A1. The complaint named at least ten defendants, suggesting a broad challenge to the USPTO’s handling of Perry’s application.
The Eastern District of Virginia dismissed Perry’s complaint, and Perry appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under case number 23-1812. On 24 November 2025, a Federal Circuit panel issued a brief but conclusive ruling: having considered all remaining arguments and found them unpersuasive, the court affirmed the dismissal in full. The result leaves the district court’s dismissal intact and forecloses further appellate review at the Federal Circuit level.
The case ran 942 days from filing to closure — notable for a pro se appeal that produced no reported oral argument or detailed published opinion on the merits. The brevity of the Federal Circuit’s ruling suggests the panel found the lower court’s analysis sound without requiring extended treatment. What drove the original dismissal — whether jurisdictional, on the merits, or on immunity grounds against federal officers — is not fully resolved from the public record, though sovereign immunity and standing are common bases for such outcomes.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 942 days
942 days — above the median for pro se Federal Circuit appeals, which typically resolve in 12–18 months
Federal Circuit affirms: what the ruling means for both parties
What ‘AFFIRMED’ means at the Federal Circuit level
An affirmance by the Federal Circuit means the appellate panel found no reversible error in the decision below. The Eastern District of Virginia’s dismissal is now the final judicial word on Perry’s complaint. The Federal Circuit applied its standard of review — typically de novo for dismissals — and concluded the lower court reached the correct result. No further appeal is available within the Federal Circuit; only a petition to the Supreme Court remains theoretically open.
No reversible error foundPerry’s complaint is extinguished; application rights unresolved by this ruling
The affirmance confirms that Perry’s litigation route against the USPTO and its personnel has been exhausted at the Federal Circuit. The ruling does not itself resolve the underlying patent application US15/382598 on the merits — administrative prosecution channels at the USPTO remain legally separate. However, any judicial claims arising from the same complaint allegations are now barred. Perry would need to pursue distinct administrative or post-grant avenues to advance the application.
Litigation avenue closedUSPTO and named defendants fully vindicated on appeal
The USPTO and the ten named individual defendants — including directors, examiners, and USPTO officials — emerged from this appeal without liability. The affirmance shields them from the specific claims Perry raised. For individual federal officers, this outcome is consistent with the protections typically afforded under qualified immunity or sovereign immunity doctrines, though the precise basis for the original dismissal is not detailed in the public appellate record.
Full defence successAffirmed dismissal reinforces limits on direct suits against USPTO personnel
This outcome is consistent with a well-established line of Federal Circuit and district court precedent making it procedurally difficult to sustain direct infringement or tort claims against the USPTO and its examiners in their official capacities. Patent applicants and practitioners should note that challenges to USPTO examination decisions are most effectively pursued through the PTAB appeals process and, thereafter, through 35 U.S.C. § 145 civil actions — not direct infringement suits against examiners.
Pro se suit limits confirmedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Michael A. Perry | Individual | Pro se patent applicant — holder of application US15/382598 (pub. US20180235408A1)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | United States Patent & Trademark Office | Individual | U.S. Patent & Trademark Office and named USPTO directors, examiners, and officialsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Katherine K. Vidal | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Does 1 through 10 Known and Unknown Defendants | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Charles Steven Brantley | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Dale Shaw | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Darnell Jayne, Director | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Katherine Matecki | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Kristine Clarette Matter, Examiner | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Laura Martin, Examiner | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Shirene Willis Brantley | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Wendy Garber | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael A. Perry | Attorney | Counsel for Michael A. PerrySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Apartment 203 | Law Firm | Representing Michael A. PerrySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Maureen Donovan Queler | Attorney | Counsel for United States Patent & Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael S. Forman | Attorney | Counsel for United States Patent & Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | United States Patent & Trademark Office | Law Firm | Representing United States Patent & Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The panel’s closing statement — ‘We have considered Mr. Perry’s remaining arguments and are unpersuaded’ — is characteristic Federal Circuit language used when no argument raises a novel or dispositive legal question warranting extended analysis. The single-word disposition ‘AFFIRMED’ confirms the Eastern District of Virginia’s dismissal is upheld in its entirety. At the appellate level, the standard of review for a dismissal is typically de novo, meaning the Federal Circuit independently assessed whether the complaint stated a viable claim. The brevity of the ruling suggests the panel found the outcome clear-cut under existing doctrine, leaving no legal foothold for further challenge at this court level.
US15/382598 (US20180235408A1) — patent application at issue
The patent at the centre of this dispute is application US15/382598, published as US20180235408A1 on 23 August 2018. The application was filed by Michael A. Perry and forms the basis for his litigation against USPTO personnel. The publication number and filing trajectory suggest a standard utility application prosecuted through the USPTO’s examination process. The specific technical field and claim scope would require review of the published specification, but the application’s prosecution history — including any office actions and applicant responses — is publicly accessible through the USPTO’s Patent Center.
The strategic significance of this application depends on its claim scope and prosecution status, neither of which is resolved by the Federal Circuit’s affirmance. If the application remains pending, abandoned, or has issued as a patent, each outcome carries different competitive implications. Applicants and competitors operating in the same technology space should monitor the application’s prosecution history for continuation filings or divisional applications that could extend coverage. The litigation itself does not affect the application’s patentability — USPTO examination and litigation are parallel, independent tracks.
Should you run an FTO against US15/382598 (US20180235408A1)?
Any company developing or commercialising products in the technology area addressed by US20180235408A1 should assess whether this application — or any issued patents in its family — creates freedom-to-operate risk. Although this litigation ended in dismissal, the underlying application’s claims may still be live. Patent applications can issue years after filing, and continuation or divisional filings can extend prosecution timelines significantly. An FTO analysis should cover the full family tree, not just the published application.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the prosecution history of US15/382598, identify related family members across jurisdictions, and flag claims that may read on your product or process. Given that the litigation record does not resolve the application’s substantive scope, a targeted Eureka FTO search is the most efficient way to quantify exposure and inform product development decisions before this application potentially issues.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US20180235408A1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals involving USPTO and patent prosecution disputes
Federal Circuit cases where applicants challenged USPTO examination decisions or named USPTO officials — analysed by outcome, procedural posture, and claim type.
What this case signals for the USPTO litigation and patent prosecution landscape
Perry v. USPTO reinforces structural barriers facing applicants who attempt to litigate directly against the patent office and its examiners.
Direct suits against USPTO examiners face steep jurisdictional hurdles
This affirmance is consistent with the USPTO and its officers being substantially protected from direct infringement or damages claims by applicants. Companies and individuals dissatisfied with examination outcomes should exhaust PTAB and ex parte appeal channels before considering district court action — and should not expect direct claims against examiners to survive dismissal motions.
Pro se appellants face a high affirmance rate at the Federal Circuit
The panel’s terse ‘we have considered… and are unpersuaded’ language is a common Federal Circuit formula in pro se appeals where no novel legal issue warrants elaboration. Practitioners advising individual inventors should calibrate expectations: a district court dismissal upheld at the Federal Circuit has a very low probability of reversal absent a clear legal error or constitutional question.
Perry v United — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Michael A. Perry’s complaint against the USPTO and named examiners on 24 November 2025. The panel found Perry’s arguments unpersuasive and upheld the Eastern District of Virginia’s earlier dismissal in full, ending the litigation.
The patent involved is application US15/382598, published as US20180235408A1. Perry’s infringement action against the USPTO related to this application and its prosecution before the patent office.
Following a Federal Circuit affirmance, the only remaining avenue is a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court grants very few such petitions, and absent a circuit split or significant federal question, the probability of review is low. The Federal Circuit’s ruling is effectively final for practical purposes.
The precise basis for the Eastern District of Virginia’s dismissal is not detailed in the public Federal Circuit record. Common grounds for dismissing suits against the USPTO and its examiners include sovereign immunity, failure to state a claim, and lack of standing. The Federal Circuit’s terse affirmance suggests the lower court’s reasoning was considered sound without requiring elaboration.
No. The Federal Circuit ruling disposes only of the litigation against the USPTO and its personnel. The underlying patent application US15/382598 remains subject to its own prosecution track at the USPTO, independent of the court proceedings. The application’s status — pending, abandoned, or issued — must be verified separately through the USPTO’s Patent Center.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.