Nove: This order is nonprecedential. Anited States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
TONY COLIDA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
Vv.
SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS
(USA), INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
2010-1374
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in case no. 07-CV-9260, Judge Richard J. Holwell.
ON MOTION
Before LINN, Dyk, and PRosT, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA), Inc. moves to dismiss Tony Colida’s appeal as frivolous and also moves for sanctions.
2COLIDA v. SONY ERICSSON 2
Colida sued Sony Ericsson alleging infringement of his design patent. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Colida’s complaint as barred by res judicata because he had lost in two previous patent infringement cases involving Sony Ericsson that were essentially the same design as the Sony Ericsson product currently at issue. Colida appeals.
We note that on at least two previous occasions, we have determined that Colida’s appeals involving his design patent were frivolous as filed. See Colida v. Sharp Elec. Corp., 125 Fed.Appx. 993 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Colida v. Sanyo N. Am. Corp., No. 04-1287, 2004 WL 2853034 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 2, 2004).
An appeal is frivolous when an appellant grounds his appeal on arguments or issues that are “beyond the reasonable contemplation of fair-minded people.” Abbs v. Principi, 237 F.3d 1342, 1845 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Moreover, an appeal as to which “no basis for reversal in law or fact can be or is even arguably shown” is frivolous. State Indus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc., 948 F.2d 1573, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Such an appeal unnecessarily wastes the limited resources of the court as well as those of the appellee. Id.
When an appellant is proceeding in forma pauperis, as Colida is in this appeal, "the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action or appeal... is frivolous... ." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Here, Colida’s brief fails to provide any support for why the district court might have erred in dismissing his complaint. In response to the questions whether the district court erred, Colida responds with "JURIS-PRUDENCE." No basis for reversal in law or fact can be or is arguably shown, and the appeal is frivolous. Although we decline to award sanctions in this appeal, we3 3 COLIDA v. SONY ERICSSON award Sony Ericsson its costs pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 39(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(1).
Accordingly, It Is ORDERED THAT: (1) Sony Ericsson’s motion to dismiss is granted. (2) Sony Ericsson's motion for sanctions is denied. (8) Costs are awarded to Sony Ericsson.
For THE Court OCT 26 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly
Date Jan Horbaly
Clerk
ce: Tony Colida
Michelle Mancio Marsh, Esq.
820
Issued As A Mandate: OCT 26 2010
FILED
APPEALS FOR US . PP PEDERAL CIRCUIT
CT 2.6 2010
O
JAN HORBALY
- - CLERK