| We normally don’t deal with patent cases at Kaufman & Kahn, but a case from New Jersey’s state court system caught my eye. Tormasi v. NJ Dept of Corrections provides a window into New Jersey’s correctional system and the treatment of pro se, would-be litigants. The underlying issue — which was not addressed in this lawsuit — involved a patent owned by Walter Tormasi, who happens to be serving a life sentence in New Jersey for fatally shooting his mother. Mr. Tormasi isn’t a one-trick pony; he went on to obtain a patent while in prison. When he caught wind of an infringing use of that patent, he wanted to challenge it. Standing in his way was a New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) regulation called the “No Business Rule.” As its name suggests, the rule was simple enough for the DOC to cite when denying Tormasi’s request, but instead Tormasi received a Kafkaesque non-answer that even the court would later be unable to understand. After judicial prodding, the DOC elaborated on its cryptic letter: Because Tormasi had failed to request permission to obtain the patent all those years ago, he should not be permitted to bring a lawsuit that would further his commercial interests in the result. In its ruling, the New Jersey court adopted the standard deference to agency decisions seen elsewhere, essentially upholding agency decisions unless they are “arbitrary” or “capricious.” The court ruled that the DOC’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious, and denied Tormasi the right to become a plaintiff and bring the lawsuit. On December 22, 2022, the New Jersey Supreme Court declined to denied Tormasi’s petition or review of the appellate court’s decision. One of the things that stood out for the court was how utterly dismissive the DOC was; the agency’s annoyance with Tormasi was palpable. It seems unfair, unjust, and another example of how poorly inmates are treated. I don’t know if the patent allegation is valid, but it would certainly be ironic if the plaintiff actually invented something that a billion-dollar company is using. Certainly, pro se litigants can be frustrating. “Prison lawyers” are an annoyance to the court system when their claims are without merit. But it still seems extremely unfair to me that there is a rule that one cannot make money from things that have nothing to do with the convicted crime. I’ll note that the USPTO approved Tormasi’s patent, which indicates that he had filed something that was original and non-obvious. That should be worth something, even if the inventor is a felon. |
Do Not Pass Go
About the Author
