Case: 23-1666 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 12/12/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CHIKEZIE OTTAH,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
NATIONAL GRID,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-1666
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York in No. 1:22-cv-02935-PAE-
RWL, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.
______________________
Decided: December 12, 2023
______________________
CHIKEZIE OTTAH, Elmont, NY, pro se.
ARIEL ELAINE RONNEBURGER, Cullen and Dykman
LLP, Uniondale, NY, for defendant-appellee.
______________________
Before DYK, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Chikezie Ottah appeals a decision from the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Case: 23-1666 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 12/12/2023
2 OTTAH v. NATIONAL GRID
dismissing his patent infringement claim as barred by
claim preclusion. Ottah v. Nat’l Grid, No. 22 Civ. 2935,
2023 WL 1433667 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2023). Because we
agree that claim preclusion bars Mr. Ottah from bringing
the same claim again, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
U.S. Patent No. 7,152,840 (’840 patent), entitled “Book
Holder,” is directed to “a removable book holder assembly
for use by a person in a protective or mobile structure such
as a car seat, wheelchair, walker, or stroller.” ’840 patent
col. 1 ll. 6–9. Before Mr. Ottah filed the suit underlying
this appeal, on September 5, 2019, Mr. Ottah filed suit
against National Grid in the Southern District of New
York, alleging that National Grid’s vehicular laptop
mounting device infringed the ’840 patent. Ottah v. Nat’l
Grid, No. 19 Civ. 8289 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2020). In this
earlier litigation, the district court granted National Grid’s
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and entered
final judgment dismissing the case.
On April 8, 2022, Mr. Ottah filed the suit underlying
this appeal, again in the Southern District of New York and
again alleging that National Grid’s vehicular laptop
mounting device infringed the ’840 patent. National Grid
moved to dismiss on the grounds that Mr. Ottah lacked
standing, could not plausibly state a claim for patent in-
fringement because his claims were barred under claim
preclusion (also referred to as res judicata), and was at
least partially time-barred from pursuing monetary recov-
ery. The district court granted National Grid’s motion to
dismiss on the basis of claim preclusion. Ottah,
2023 WL
1433667, at *2.
Mr. Ottah timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pur-
suant to
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
DISCUSSION
Whether a cause of action is barred by claim preclusion
is a question of law that we review without deference.
Case: 23-1666 Document: 28 Page: 3 Filed: 12/12/2023
OTTAH v. NATIONAL GRID 3
Brain Life, LLC v. Elekta Inc.,
746 F.3d 1045, 1052 (Fed.
Cir. 2014). To determine whether claim preclusion bars a
later lawsuit, we generally apply the law of the regional
circuit in which the trial court resides, in this case the Sec-
ond Circuit.
Id. (citing Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.,
525
F.3d 1319, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). The Second Circuit has
held that claim preclusion bars litigation on a claim if an
“earlier decision was (1) a final judgment on the merits, (2)
by a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) in a case involving
the same parties or their privies, and (4) involving the
same cause of action.” Hansen v. Miller,
52 F.4th 96, 100–
01 (2d Cir. 2022) (quoting Cho v. Blackberry Ltd.,
991 F.3d
155, 168 (2d Cir. 2021)). A “dismissal for failure to state a
claim is a final judgment on the merits and thus has res
judicata effects.” Berrios v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.,
564 F.3d
130, 134 (2d Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Whether two claims of infringement constitute the same
claim or cause of action is an issue particular to patent law
and we apply our own law on that issue. See Hallco Mfg.
Co. v. Foster,
256 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For pa-
tent infringement cases, causes of action are the same if
the accused products are “essentially the same” and “the
same patents are involved in both suits.” In re Personal-
Web Techs. LLC,
961 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
The district court correctly concluded that the require-
ments for claim preclusion are satisfied here. First, the
district court’s decision granting National Grid’s motion to
dismiss in the earlier suit is a final judgment on the merits.
See Berrios,
564 F.3d at 134. Second, there is no dispute
that the district court is a court of competent jurisdiction.
Third, both lawsuits involve the same parties: Mr. Ottah
and National Grid. 1 Fourth, both lawsuits involve the
1 Mr. Ottah asserts that he was not a participant in
the earlier litigation because he did not receive Magistrate
Judge Lehrburger’s report and recommendation from the
court, but this is not the legal standard for the “same par-
ties” prong of claim preclusion.
Case: 23-1666 Document: 28 Page: 4 Filed: 12/12/2023
4 OTTAH v. NATIONAL GRID
same claim, alleging infringement of the ’840 patent by the
same vehicular laptop mounting device. Because Mr. Ot-
tah’s prior suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits
by a court of competent jurisdiction, and both suits involve
the same parties and claim, we agree with the district court
that claim preclusion bars Mr. Ottah’s suit underlying this
appeal.
Even if Mr. Ottah had raised new arguments or in-
fringement theories based on the ’840 patent in the current
litigation, an issue we need not—and do not—decide, he
was still barred from bringing a second claim alleging in-
fringement of the same patent accusing the same product.
See PersonalWeb, 961 F.3d at 1375 (“Regardless of the
number of substantive theories available . . . a party may
not split a single claim into separate grounds of recovery
and raise those separate grounds in successive lawsuits.”).
Claim preclusion bars any new arguments or theories re-
lating to infringement of the ’840 patent by National Grid’s
vehicular laptop mounting device.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Ottah’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons,
the district court properly concluded that Mr. Ottah’s pa-
tent infringement claim was barred by claim preclusion.
The district court’s dismissal of Mr. Ottah’s complaint is
affirmed.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
