Pietro Pasquale Antonio Sgromo loses at CAFC: lack of subject matter jurisdiction

The outcome

Pietro Pasquale Antonio Sgromo appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granting Target Brands, Inc.’s (“Target”) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and denying Sgromo’s motion for a preliminary injunction. See Sgromo v. Target Brands, Inc., No. CV 20-1030, 2021 WL 632496 (D. Minn. Feb. 18, 2021). We affirm.

Because Sgromo lacked ownership of any of the asserted patents and trademarks, the magistrate judge recommended granting Target’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that Sgromo lacked standing to assert claims for infringement. J.A. 41. In addition, because Sgromo also failed to demonstrate that he had a fair chance of prevailing on any of his claims, the magistrate judge recommended denying Sgromo’s motion for a preliminary injunction. J.A. 41–42. Judge John Tunheim adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed the claims. J.A. 2–14.

Sgromo did not hold ownership of any of the patents or trademarks when he asserted them. At all relevant times, as indicated by publicly available assignment forms, Scott, Bestway, or Imperial Toy owned the ’422, ’440, and ’298 patents and the H2O-GO! trademarks. See J.A. 26–35, 63; S.A. 111–22, 170–75. Although Sgromo is listed as an inventor on the ’298 and ’422 patents, he had assigned them to others and lacked ownership of these patents when he attempted to sue on them. In addition, the purported assignments Sgromo filed for the ’422 patent, ’440 patent, and H2O-GO! trademarks have no legal effect. See 37 C.F.R. § 3.54 (“The recording of a document . . . is not a determination by the Office of the validity of the document or the effect that document has on the title to an application, a patent, or a registration.”).