Bhagat v. PTO

Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 1 Filed: 04/03/2024

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________

URVASHI BHAGAT,
Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK
OFFICE, KATHERINE K. VIDAL, IN HER
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS UNDER SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, UNITED
STATES,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________

2023-1545
______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia in No. 1:20-cv-01515-CMH-
IDD, Senior Judge Claude M. Hilton.
______________________

Decided: April 3, 2024
______________________

URVASHI BHAGAT, Palo Alto, CA, pro se.

MAUREEN DONOVAN QUELER, Office of the Solicitor,
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria,
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 2 Filed: 04/03/2024

2 BHAGAT v. PTO

VA, for defendants-appellees. Also represented by OMAR
FAROOQ AMIN, MARY L. KELLY, THOMAS W. KRAUSE,
FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED; JESSICA D. ABER, MATTHEW
JAMES MEZGER, Office of the United States Attorney for the
Eastern District of Virginia, United States Department of
Justice, Alexandria, VA.
______________________

Before PROST, CLEVENGER, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Urvashi Bhagat (“Bhagat”) appeals several orders from
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia: requiring Bhagat to file paper motions to the
court, rejecting her requests for discovery enlargement and
rescheduling of the pretrial conference, denying her re-
quest to file a second amended complaint, denying her re-
quest to exclude an expert, granting defendant United
States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“PTO”) partial mo-
tion to dismiss Bhagat’s causes of action unrelated to pa-
tentability, denying her request to strike the PTO’s motion
for summary judgment and granting that motion finding
that Bhagat’s patent claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 101 and 103. Bhagat also asserts various due process
violations against the district court. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
A. The Patent Application
Bhagat is the inventor of the United States Patent Ap-
plication No. 13/877,847 (the “Application”). The Applica-
tion claims are directed to nutritional formulations
containing omega-6 fatty acids and antioxidants, which the
Application describes as contained “in any orally accepta-
ble form, including, capsules, tablets, liquid formulations,
or whole foods” and administered orally. The Application
claims a “packaged product” where “the intermixture of
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 3 Filed: 04/03/2024

BHAGAT v. PTO 3

omega-6 fatty acid(s) and antioxidant(s) is not any single
specific variety of a vegetable, a fruit, a nut, or a seed,” and
the dosage ranges “from 1 to 40g of omega-6 fatty acids and
from 25mg to 10g of antioxidants . . . wherein the antioxi-
dants comprise one or more polyphenols in the dosage of
greater than 5mg.” App. Br. to PTO at 46, claim 82. The
Application also claims the product in a “kit” that includes
a range of two to twenty different nutritional formulations,
“which collectively provide an amount of nutrients from
0.0001 to 100 g/kg body weight . . . 40-80% of individual’s
daily calories . . . 10-50% calories from protein, 15-50% cal-
ories from lipids, and 35-85% calories from carbohydrates;
and/or . . . deliver at least 50% of daily micronutrients for
the individual” and/or is made up of “at least one of: vege-
table or vegetable juice packs, fruit or fruit juice packs, dry
grain packs, cereal packs, legume, grain, nuts, or seed
packs, meat or seafood packs, or herbs, lipids, meals, snack,
side dish, salad, desserts, milks, powder, puree, or yogurt
packs.” App. Br. to PTO at 23–4, claim 95.
The Application also contains method claims, wherein
claim 88 sets out steps for “administering the dosage to an
individual, wherein the individual belongs to a diet cohort”
based on factors like “gender, age, genetic profile, family
history, climactic temperature, or medical condition,” claim
97 describes a method for treating “a medical condition or
disease in the individual” and claim 116 recites a method
for treating a variety of conditions such as aging, mental
disorders, diabetes, autoimmune and infectious diseases.
App. Br. to PTO at 21, 24, 31–32, claims 88, 97, and 116.
None of the method claims, however, “include tailoring the
nutrient dosages in the product to the diet cohort or re-
stricting the total daily intake of any of the claimed nutri-
ents.” J.A. 21.
The Application additionally includes a withdrawn
claim directed to a computer system to implement the
method claims and to output nutritional plans for individ-
uals based on dietary preferences and guidelines “wherein
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 4 Filed: 04/03/2024

4 BHAGAT v. PTO

the nutrition program comprises a listing of formulations,
optionally comprising food items, wherein from 1 to 40g of
omega-6 fatty acids and from 5mg to 10g of antioxidants
comprising at least 5mg of one or more polyphenols are in-
cluded in the program for daily consumption by the indi-
vidual.” App. Br. to PTO at 29–30, claim 112.
B. Procedural History
1. PTO Proceedings
Bhagat filed the Application with the PTO in 2013. The
PTO examiner rejected all pending claims of the Applica-
tion for obviousness and rejected claims 82 and 99 for fail-
ing to comply with the written description requirement,
claims 82, 87, 91–93, 96, 97, 99, 102, 109, 110, and 113–120
for indefiniteness, and claims 88, 89, 95, 103, and 107–110
for improper dependency.
Bhagat appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
(“Board”), which reversed the rejection for written descrip-
tion and affirmed the rejection for obviousness on the mer-
its. 1 The Board affirmed the obviousness rejection because
the Application claims were “obvious in light of numerous
past expert studies and disclosures,” particularly Claudia
R. Morris’s U.S. Published Patent Application Number
2008/0213239 (“Morris”). Bhagat v. U.S. Pat. & Trade-
mark Off., No. 1:20-cv-1515, 2023 WL 2721003, at *2 (E.D.
Va. Mar. 30, 2023) (“Summary Judgment Opinion”).
The Board explained that Morris addresses the treat-
ment of various conditions, like cardiovascular disease, by
disclosing nutritional formulations comprising omega-6

1 The Board summarily affirmed the rejections based
on indefiniteness and improper dependency because Bha-
gat failed to include in her Appeal Brief any substantive
arguments on the merits that the rejections on those
grounds should be reversed. J.A. 5980, 6480.
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 5 Filed: 04/03/2024

BHAGAT v. PTO 5

fatty acids and Vitamin E in dosages and amounts that
overlap with those in the Application claims. Id. at *2
(“Morris shows that the formulations comprise from about
50 mg to about 500 mg omega-6 fatty acids that may be
administered once, twice, or three times daily, which would
equal a dosage ranging from 50 mg to 1,500 mg of omega-6
fatty acids a day.”). The Board also found that Morris dis-
closed packaged formulations of omega-6 fatty acids, Vita-
min E, and polyphenols, as well as dosages of omega-6 and
Vitamin E in the ranges claimed in the Application claims
and disclosed that “dosages are a result-effective variable
and may be optimized for an individual,” rendering the Ap-
plication’s claimed dosages obvious. Id. Factors discussed
in Morris as impacting the preparation of formulations in-
clude age, weight, and genetic makeup, which overlap with
the diet cohort factors in the Application. Id. at *2. The
Board found that Morris disclosed most of what the
claimed invention covered, and that the only difference—
that the Application disclosed using nutrients from differ-
ent sources—was rendered obvious from other expert dis-
closures teaching the mixtures of different nutrient
sources. Id. at *2 (“The only difference the Board found
between Morris and [the Application’s] claimed formula-
tion was an explicit disclosure of using nutrients from dif-
ferent sources . . . . [which] would have been obvious in
light of another expert’s teachings of oil blends from differ-
ent sources.”).
2. District Court Proceedings
On December 10, 2020, Bhagat filed suit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to
challenge the Board’s decision, alleging that the district
court had jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 145 and
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 1361. Id. at *2. Bhagat
amended her complaint on April 19, 2021. Am. Compl.,
Bhagat v. USPTO, (No. 1:20-cv-01515), ECF 13. In addi-
tion to alleging that the PTO erroneously rejected her pa-
tent claims, Bhagat asserted entitlement to general
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 6 Filed: 04/03/2024

6 BHAGAT v. PTO

damages due to the PTO’s “bad faith,” and asserted causes
of action for “taking of her property, including but not lim-
ited to her patent,” tortious harassment, and a mandamus
compelling the PTO to issue the Application’s rejected pa-
tent claims. Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 64–84, Bhagat v. USPTO,
(No. 1:20-cv-01515), ECF 13; Bhagat v. U.S. Pat. & Trade-
mark Off., No. 1:20-cv-1515, 2021 WL 3130866, at *2 (E.D.
Va. July 22, 2021) (“Motion to Dismiss Opinion”).
On July 22, 2021, the district court granted the PTO’s
motion to dismiss all of Bhagat’s causes of action that were
not related to the patentability of the Application claims
and to strike Bhagat’s request for a jury trial. Motion to
Dismiss Opinion, 2021 WL 3130866, at *3.
The district court first determined that it did not have
subject matter jurisdiction over the claims for takings,
money damages, or tortious harassment due to sovereign
immunity. Id. at *1. As the district court noted, agencies
of the United States, such as the PTO, are generally
shielded from liability by sovereign immunity unless Con-
gress has expressly waived it. Id.
The district court explained that “Congress has not
waived its sovereign immunity for money damages in ac-
tions brought pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 145” and therefore
found it did not have jurisdiction over any of Bhagat’s
claims for money damages under Section 145. Id.
The district court then stated that the Tucker Act
waives sovereign immunity for claims for non-tort money
damages, such as takings claims, but gives exclusive juris-
diction to the Court of Federal Claims when those damages
are over $10,000, and that the Federal Tort Claims Act
waives sovereign immunity for tortious harassment only if
a plaintiff first presents an administrative claim to the
agency that the plaintiff purports is responsible for their
injury. Id. at *1–2. Since Bhagat brought claims for
$500,000,000 against the United States, the district court
concluded that the Court of Federal Claims had exclusive
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 7 Filed: 04/03/2024

BHAGAT v. PTO 7

jurisdiction over the damages claim under the Tucker Act.
Id. at *1. The district court also found that since Bhagat
did not present an administrative claim to the PTO, the
agency allegedly responsible for harassing her, the district
court did not have jurisdiction over her tortious harass-
ment claim. Id. at *2.
Next, the district court addressed the PTO’s motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief could be
granted, finding that there were no facts in the Amended
Complaint to support Bhagat’s allegations that the PTO vi-
olated her constitutional rights, made false statements, or
that she was entitled to mandamus relief. Id. The district
court found that Bhagat failed to establish, as required for
mandamus relief, that “(1) she has a clear right to the relief
requested and (2) no other relief is available” because she
failed to plausibly allege that the PTO owes her a duty to
issue her patent and because she had another avenue of
relief under Section 145, which she also asserted in her
Amended Complaint. Id. (citing Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S.
603, 616 (1984)). The district court also concluded that
Bhagat alleged only that the PTO erred in adjudicating her
patent without alleging any facts to support her claim that
the PTO made false statements and acted with misconduct,
and therefore concluded that she made only “naked asser-
tions” that could not survive the PTO’s motion to dismiss.
Id. (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Sim-
ilarly, the district court found that Bhagat’s allegation that
the PTO violated her constitutional rights was not a plau-
sible claim because she identified neither the violative ac-
tion the PTO allegedly took nor the constitutional right it
purportedly violated. Id. at *3.
Finally, the district court granted the PTO’s motion to
strike Bhagat’s request for a jury trial because the Seventh
Amendment right to a jury trial is not applicable in actions
against the United States, unless Congress in waiving sov-
ereign immunity unequivocally expresses that the right ex-
ists in the authorizing statute. Id. The district court held
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 8 Filed: 04/03/2024

8 BHAGAT v. PTO

that the remaining patent claim, for which Congress
waived sovereign immunity under Section 145, did not pro-
vide Bhagat with a right to a jury trial because Section 145
contains no unequivocal right to a jury trial. Id.
Thus, the district court dismissed all causes of action
besides the patent claim under Section 145 and struck Bha-
gat’s request for a jury trial. Id.
On December 14, 2022, Bhagat filed a motion for the
extension of time for expert rebuttal reports and the en-
largement of discovery, arguing that the PTO’s “long-
winded and disjointed” expert reports required more time
to prepare the rebuttals, that illness and unavailability of
her experts caused a delay, and that she contacted the
judge’s law clerk by phone and email to request a confer-
ence to extend time for expert rebuttals and enlarge discov-
ery before the close of discovery. 2 Mot. for Extension of
Time for Expert Rebuttal Report & Further Enlargement
of Discovery, Bhagat v. USPTO, (No. 1:20-cv-01515), ECF
62, 64. Bhagat requested an extension of time for disclos-
ing rebuttals to the PTO’s experts to December 9, 2022, the
date that she did submit the rebuttals, which was thirteen
days after the initial deadline of November 25, 2022. ECF
64, at 11. She also requested that discovery be enlarged to
February 6, 2023, to allow her further discovery requests
and to permit her to depose the PTO’s expert witness, and
for the final pretrial conference to be delayed from January
12, 2023, to February 12, 2023. ECF 64, at 11.
Also on December 14, 2022, Bhagat filed a motion to
disqualify the PTO’s expert, Dr. William S. Harris, as an

2 Per her own admission, Bhagat contacted the clerk
multiple times from November 20, 2022, through Decem-
ber 5, 2022. ECF 64, at 6. The district court subsequently
issued orders explaining that this was not the proper mode
for requesting relief from the court, discussed infra at 8–9.
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 9 Filed: 04/03/2024

BHAGAT v. PTO 9

expert witness due to “numerous conflicts of interest, and
his opinions and testimony [being] neither relevant nor re-
liable pursuant to the standards set forth in Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 506 U.S. 579 (1993).” Mot. to
Disqualify Dr. Harris at 1, Bhagat v. USPTO, (No. 1:20-cv-
01515), ECF 66.
On December 16, 2022, the district court issued an or-
der addressing Bhagat “constantly emailing and calling the
[c]ourt requesting various forms of relief despite being in-
formed by the [c]ourt, on more than one occasion, that writ-
ten motions are the only appropriate form by which to
request relief from the [c]ourt.” Bhagat v. U.S. Pat. &
Trademark Off., No. 1:20-cv-01515, 2022 WL 18401639, at
*1 (E.D. Va. Dec. 16, 2022), ECF 68 (“First Ex Parte Com-
munications Order”). The district court noted that, while
it had granted Bhagat’s motion for Pro Se E-Noticing, that
grant did not permit her to “file documents or requests for
relief electronically” and that she must follow the proper
procedure for requesting relief, which is “filing a paper copy
of any motion through the Clerk’s Office that includes the
relief requested and a legal basis for granting such relief.”
Id. The district court directed Bhagat to review the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Pro Se Reference Handbook and asserted that it would not
respond to any further email or phone communications
from Bhagat. Id.
In response, Bhagat filed a motion, which the district
court “interpret[ed] . . . as a Motion to Vacate the Decem-
ber 16, 2022 Order.” Bhagat v. U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off.,
No. 1:20-cv-01515, 2022 WL 18401638, at *1 (E.D. Va. Dec.
30, 2022), ECF 75 (“Second Ex Parte Communications Or-
der”). The district court denied this motion on December
30, 2022, reiterating that Bhagat “should never contact
chambers regarding any substantive issues concerning the
case unless authorized by the [c]ourt in advance” and con-
cluding that Bhagat’s substantive request for extension of
time for expert rebuttal reports, which was the topic of her
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 10 Filed: 04/03/2024

10 BHAGAT v. PTO

ex parte communication, was not an exception to this rule
just because the district court had the “ability to sua sponte
grant an extension of time ‘with or without motion or no-
tice’ as noted” in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A).
Id.
On January 10, 2023, the district court denied Bhagat’s
motion to enlarge discovery to February 6, 2023, and to re-
schedule the pretrial conference, but granted the motion in
part to permit the extension of the rebuttal disclosures to
December 9, 2022. Order on Mot. for Extension of Discov-
ery, Bhagat v. USPTO, (No. 1:20-cv-01515), ECF 77. The
district court reasoned that Bhagat’s motion, which she
filed after the close of discovery, was not timely, and that
regardless she failed to show good cause for an extension
because her delays were caused by her own legal strategy 3
and inability to manage her personal workload. Id. The
district court found that, since Bhagat did not begin discov-
ery until November 1, 2022, despite discovery opening on
August 11, 2022, she did not show good cause for her ex-
tension request. Id. The district court was also unper-
suaded by Bhagat’s arguments that the PTO has more
resources than she does, as it noted there is often a dispar-
ity in resources among parties. Id. Thus, it rejected her

3 Bhagat filed a petition to the United States Su-
preme Court requesting that the Supreme Court issue a
writ of mandamus to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia on August 17, 2022. In re
Urvashi Bhagat, 2022 WL 4226537 (August 17, 2022). Her
Petition was denied on October 31, 2022. In re Bhagat, 143
S. Ct. 396 (2022). The district court determined that Bha-
gat’s decision to wait to begin discovery until after the out-
come of her petition to the Supreme Court was a legal
strategy that did not entitle her to an extension for discov-
ery. Order on Mot. for Extension of Discovery, Bhagat v.
USPTO, (No. 1:20-cv-01515), ECF 77.
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 11 Filed: 04/03/2024

BHAGAT v. PTO 11

request to extend discovery or to reschedule the pretrial
conference. Id.
On January 17, 2023, the district court denied Bhagat’s
motion to disqualify Dr. Harris, reasoning that her “objec-
tions go to the weight of the expert’s testimony, not admis-
sibility.” Order Declining to Disqualify Dr. Harris, Bhagat
v. USPTO, (No. 1:20-cv-01515), ECF 83.
The PTO filed a motion for summary judgment on Jan-
uary 20, 2023, arguing that the undisputed facts show that
the Application claims are patent ineligible under
35 U.S.C. § 101 and that claims 82–89, 91–104, 107–110,
and 113–120 are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. On January 31, 2023, Bhagat responded with a mo-
tion to strike the PTO’s summary judgment motion as
premature since she had appealed the close of discovery,
denial of the rescheduling of the pretrial conference, and
admissibility of the PTO’s expert report.
The district court denied Bhagat’s motion to strike the
PTO’s motion for summary judgment and granted the
PTO’s motion, finding that the claims at issue are patent-
ineligible under Section 101 and unpatentable under 103.
Summary Judgment Opinion, 2023 WL 2721003, at *1–5.
The district court first addressed the motion to strike,
finding that since Bhagat had over four months to conduct
discovery, her argument that the motion for summary
judgment was premature due to her appeal of the district
court’s refusal to extend discovery was not persuasive. Id.
at *1. The district court also found that Bhagat failed to
demonstrate that a stay was supported pending interlocu-
tory appeal of discovery matters. Id.
After concluding that Bhagat’s motion to strike the
PTO’s motion should be denied, the district court turned to
the merits of the PTO’s summary judgment motion.
The district court first addressed the PTO’s argument
that all the Application claims are patent ineligible under
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 12 Filed: 04/03/2024

12 BHAGAT v. PTO

Section 101, finding that both the product and method
claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter
and were not transformed to patent-eligible subject matter
because the only limitations beyond those directed at nat-
ural phenomena or abstract ideas were well-known and
conventional. Id. at *3–4 (citing Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v.
CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)); see also PTO Mem.
in Supp. of Summ. Judgment at 16–24, Bhagat v. USPTO
(No. 1:20-cv-01515), ECF 86.
In its Alice step one analysis, i.e., determining whether
the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept such
as a natural phenomenon or abstract idea, the district
court found that the Application claims recited a combina-
tion of nutrients naturally present in almonds, with some
of the claims describing the same dosages of omega-6 fatty
acids, polyphenols, and phytosterols contained in almonds.
Summary Judgment Opinion, 2023 WL 2721003, at *3
(“[A]lmonds contain the dosages of omega-6 fatty acids re-
cited in claims 92, 107, 113, and 119, and the polyphenol
dosage recited in claim 120. Almonds further comprise
phytosterols as required by claim 85, in the dosages recited
in claims 86, 93, 108, and 114.”); see also id. (“Claim 94’s
requirement that one formulation provide omega-6 fatty
acids in a dosage less than 1 g, but that a plurality collec-
tively provide 1 to 40 g of omega-6 merely encompasses a
product of 100 g of almonds broken into 5 g increments. Al-
monds also contain the phytochemicals, lipids, antioxi-
dants, vitamins, minerals, and fiber recited in claims 87
and 101 [and] claim 89 encompasses a mixture of one or
more food items, which includes a mixture of 100 g of al-
monds with other nuts.”). The district court also found that
claim 112, which “deals with a computer system that im-
plements the method of preparing the product” was di-
rected to the abstract idea of meal planning. Id. at *4.
In its Alice step two analysis, i.e., determining if any
additional claim limitations transform a natural phenome-
non or abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention, the
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 13 Filed: 04/03/2024

BHAGAT v. PTO 13

district court concluded that all the remaining limitations
recited well-known activities such as conventional packag-
ing practices, crushing almonds into a powder, and “admin-
istering,” “determining,” “selecting,” and “preparing” steps.
Id. The district court found that the “administering” step
included eating or feeding almonds to an individual and
that the “diet cohorts” were identified in “a generic manner
that all humans would qualify.” Id. Similarly, the district
court found that the “determining” step groups individuals
into the broad diet cohorts “based on food preference, die-
tary habits, age, or gender” and that the “selecting” and
“preparing” steps link the nutritional formulations to the
diet cohorts. Id. The district court also concluded that
claim 112 does nothing more than add conventional com-
puter components to the abstract idea of meal planning.
Id. Thus, the district court concluded the Application’s
claims were patent ineligible under Section 101.
The district court then found that the pending Applica-
tion claims were further unpatentable as obvious under
Section 103 considering the teachings of Morris, which the
Board relied on in rejecting the claims, and Joshua C. An-
thony et al., U.S. Published Patent Application Number
2007/0166411 A1 (“Anthony”). Id. at *5. The district court
noted that the Board determined that Morris taught “pre-
paring and administering a packaged dietary formulation
comprising omega-6 fatty acids, Vitamin E, and polyphe-
nols” as well as “dosages of omega-6 fatty acids and Vita-
min E overlapping the claimed range.” Id. The district
court also noted that the PTO’s expert witness Dr. Harris
explained that “the benefits of consuming the claimed nu-
trients were well-known in the art as of 2010” and that
Bhagat had not argued how the references Dr. Harris used
to support this statement did not disclose the limitations in
the dependent claims. Id. The district court found that
Bhagat failed to establish unexpected results to rebut the
presumption of obviousness from the overlapping dosage
ranges in Morris and the Application and could not support
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 14 Filed: 04/03/2024

14 BHAGAT v. PTO

her contention that Morris teaches away from the Applica-
tion claims. Id. Finally, the district court found that Bha-
gat’s argument that the prior art was not relevant because
it did not address the same problem solved by her Applica-
tion claims was unconvincing because “the prior art [was]
from the same field of endeavor in nutritional formula-
tions.” Id.
Therefore, the district court granted the PTO’s motion
for summary judgment that the Application claims were
not eligible for patent protection. Id.
On March 15, 2023, Bhagat filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint, which the district court
denied as unduly delayed on March 31, 2023. Mot. for
Leave to File Second Am. Compl., Bhagat v. USPTO, (No.
1:20-cv-01515), ECF 113; Order Denying Mot. to File Sec-
ond Am. Compl., Bhagat v. USPTO, (No. 1:20-cv-01515),
ECF 126.
Bhagat appeals (1) the district court’s orders requiring
her to file paper motions to request relief from the court,
denying her request for the enlargement of discovery, deny-
ing her challenge to the admissibility of Dr. Harris’s testi-
mony, and denying her leave to file a second amended
complaint, and alleges that the failure of the judges to
recuse themselves was a violation of due process; (2) the
district court’s dismissal of her damages, takings, and mis-
conduct claims and striking of her demand for jury trial;
and (3) the district court’s denial of her motion to strike,
and its subsequent grant of, the PTO’s motion for summary
judgment. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(1).
DISCUSSION
This Court reviews district court orders on procedure,
discovery, complaint amendments, judge recusal and the
admissibility of evidence under the law of the regional cir-
cuit; here, the Fourth Circuit, which reviews these
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 15 Filed: 04/03/2024

BHAGAT v. PTO 15

decisions for an abuse of discretion. Panduit Corp. v. All
States Plastic Mfg. Co., 744 F.2d 1564, 1574–75 (Fed. Cir.
1984); United States ex rel. Nicholson v. MedCom Caroli-
nas, Inc., 42 F.4th 185, 196 (4th Cir. 2022) (“District courts
have inherent power to manage their dockets with an eye
toward speedy and efficient resolutions . . . . So we review
decisions about the nature of a dismissal . . . for an abuse
of discretion.”); United States ex rel. Becker v. Westinghouse
Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2002) (“We
afford substantial discretion to a district court in managing
discovery and review discovery rulings only for abuse of
that discretion.”); Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v.
Alpha of Virginia, Inc., 43 F.3d 922, 940 (4th Cir. 1995)
(“We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s ruling
on a motion for leave to amend and to add counterclaims.”);
United States v. Cherry, 330 F.3d 658, 665 (4th Cir. 2003)
(“We review a trial judge’s decision on matters of recusal
for abuse of discretion.”); United States v. Crisp, 324 F.3d
261, 265 (4th Cir. 2003) (“We review for abuse of discretion
a district court’s decision to admit or reject expert testi-
mony.”).
This Court also reviews procedural decisions that are
not unique to patent law, such as dismissal of a complaint
for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim and a grant
of summary judgment, under the law of the regional cir-
cuit. Madey v. Duke Univ., 307 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir.
2002); Weisner v. Google LLC, 51 F.4th 1073, 1081 (Fed.
Cir. 2022); Syngenta Crop Prot., LLC v. Willowood, LLC,
944 F.3d 1344, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Fourth Circuit
reviews dismissals under both FRCP 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
de novo. Madey, 307 F.3d at 1358 (citing Evans v. B.F. Per-
kins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999)); Burbach
Broad. Co. of Del. V. Elkins Radio Corp., 278 F.3d 401,
405–06 (4th Cir. 2002). Similarly, the Fourth Circuit re-
views the grant of summary judgment de novo, construing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party. Syngenta, 944 F.3d at 1355. The Fourth Circuit
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 16 Filed: 04/03/2024

16 BHAGAT v. PTO

reviews district court determinations of whether summary
judgment was premature for an abuse of discretion. Har-
rods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214,
244 (4th Cir. 2002).
A. Non-Patent Claims
The district court did not abuse its discretion or violate
due process in issuing its orders declining to extend discov-
ery, requiring Bhagat to file motions to request relief and
to do so via paper motions rather than through electronic
filing, admitting Dr. Harris’s testimony, or declining to al-
low Bhagat another amendment to her complaint. It was
also not reversable error for Judge Claude M. Hilton and
Magistrate Judge Ivan Davis to decline to recuse them-
selves. The district court did not err as a matter of law in
dismissing Bhagat’s claims for damages, takings, constitu-
tional violations, and mandamus under FRCP 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6).
1. Procedural Issues
Bhagat fails to demonstrate that the district court
abused its discretion or violated due process in its manage-
ment of discovery and the trial procedure.
First, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny Bhagat’s
request to extend discovery, which she filed after the close
of discovery. Bhagat’s argument that her ex parte emails
and calls were an attempt to timely request the extension
of discovery fails because the district court repeatedly no-
tified Bhagat that the proper procedure for requesting re-
lief from the court was through filing paper motions. See,
e.g., First Ex Parte Communications Order, Bhagat v.
USPTO, (No. 1:20-cv-01515), ECF 68. Thus, Bhagat’s ac-
tions did not amount to “excusable neglect” that could jus-
tify her untimely extension motion. Symbionics Inc. v.
Ortlieb, 432 F. App’x 216, 219–20 (4th Cir. 2011) (“[A] dis-
trict court should find excusable neglect only in the extraor-
dinary cases where injustice would otherwise result.”
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 17 Filed: 04/03/2024

BHAGAT v. PTO 17

(emphasis in original)). Further, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in finding that Bhagat failed to demon-
strate good cause to extend discovery because she waited
three months from the opening of discovery to send her dis-
covery requests. Cook v. Howard, 484 F. App’x 805, 815–
16 (4th Cir. 2012) (concluding that the district court did not
abuse its discretion by failing to find good cause where the
party demonstrated a lack of diligence by waiting months
between filing suit and seeking discovery).
Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion
by requiring Bhagat to file written motions to request relief
orders, nor did it violate due process with its rule that pro
se parties must submit written motions rather than elec-
tronic filings. The district court’s local rule, E.D. Va. Local
Civil Rule 7(F), requires that parties file written briefs
with all motions to request relief from the court, and E.D.
Va. Local Civil Rule 1(A) in conjunction with the E.D. Va.
Electronic Case Filing Policies and Procedures Manual re-
quires pro se parties to file using paper rather than
through electronic filing. E.D. Va. Local Civ. R. 7(F), 1(A);
U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. Va., Electronic Case Filing Policies and
Procedures Manual, at 12, 23 (Revised Sept. 23, 2020),
https://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/sites/vaed/files/ECF-Manu
al%2012-17-2021.pdf. Bhagat argues that Rule 7(F) con-
flicts with FRCP 6(b)(1)(A); however, that rule merely per-
mits the court to grant extensions without motion and
therefore does not conflict with the local rule’s requirement
that applies in the absence of such a discretionary excep-
tion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A); Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife
Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 896 n.5 (1990) (explaining that a court
may, using its discretion, grant a request for an extension
of discovery even without motion or notice). In fact, under
another local rule, the district court has discretion to waive
the requirement for a written motion in some circum-
stances, which further demonstrates that the local rules
align with the discretionary nature of FRCP 6(b)(1)(A).
E.D. Va. Local Civ. R. 26(B).
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 18 Filed: 04/03/2024

18 BHAGAT v. PTO

Similarly, it was not a due process violation for the dis-
trict court to require Bhagat to comply with its rule that
pro se parties may not use electronic filing, because she has
not identified that she has a “right” to electronic filing, nor
has she established that she suffered lack of notice or op-
portunity to be heard. See In re Hunter, 600 F. App’x 126,
127 (4th Cir. 2015) (“[Plaintiff] cite[d] neither statutory law
nor judicial precedent demonstrating a clear right to file
electronically.”); J.G. Peta, Inc. v. Club Protector, Inc., 65
Fed. App’x 724, 728 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (finding no constitu-
tional right to submit motions in a particular format);
Cleveland Bd. Of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546
(1985) (“The essential requirements of due process . . . are
notice and an opportunity to respond.”). Bhagat alleges
that the district court usurped approximately twelve days
of her time by requiring paper filings, which led to her de-
lay in completing discovery, impeded her ability to oppose
summary judgment, and delayed her filing her motion to
amend her complaint a second time. Appellant’s Br. at 27.
However, Bhagat’s delays were primarily caused by her de-
cision to wait three months to begin discovery and, simi-
larly, she did not move for leave to file a second amended
complaint until over a year and a half after her first
amended complaint was partially dismissed and after fil-
ing notice of appeal to this Court. See Order Granting De-
fendant’s Partial Mot. to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Am.
Compl., Bhagat v. USPTO, (No. 1:20-cv-01515), ECF 26
(07/22/2021); Mot. for Leave to File Second Am. Compl.,
Bhagat v. USPTO, (No. 1:20-cv-01515), ECF 113
(03/15/2023); Notice of Appeal, Bhagat v. USPTO, (No.
1:20-cv-01515), ECF 81 (01/13/2023). Thus, the district
court did not violate due process by requiring Bhagat to file
electronically where she has not shown any constitutional
right to do so or by rejecting her argument that she had no
notice or opportunity to be heard because of the district
court’s requirement.
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 19 Filed: 04/03/2024

BHAGAT v. PTO 19

Third, the district court did not abuse its discretion
when it denied Bhagat’s motion to exclude Dr. Harris’s tes-
timony because the district court correctly noted that Bha-
gat’s complaints about Dr. Harris’s testimony went to the
weight, rather than admissibility, of that testimony. See
Bresler v. Wilmington Trust Co., 855 F.3d 178, 195–96 (4th
Cir. 2017) (finding it was not an abuse of discretion for the
district court to decline to exclude an expert’s testimony
under Daubert where the challenges to the testimony went
to weight and credibility rather than admissibility). Daub-
ert challenges should be to the reliability and relevance of
the expert’s principles and methodology rather than to the
expert’s conclusions. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharma.,
Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993). Bhagat did not challenge
Dr. Harris’s principles or methodology; rather, she sought
disqualification based on his “significant financial interest”
in preventing the Application from being granted and his
purported misinterpretation of the prior art and the law.
Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Disqualify Dr. Harris at 3, 7, Bha-
gat v. USPTO, (No. 1:20-cv-01515), ECF 66. Bhagat’s ar-
gument of bias goes to Dr. Harris’s credibility, and her
argument that Dr. Harris mischaracterized the prior art
and the law goes to the weight of his evidence; none of her
challenges are to the evidence’s admissibility and thus the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying her
motion to exclude Dr. Harris’s testimony.
Fourth, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district
court to deny Bhagat’s motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint because she does not dispute that the
motion was delayed and puts forth no evidence that her de-
lay would not prejudice the PTO to permit her to amend
her complaint after discovery had closed and judgment for
the PTO entered. See Mayfield v. National Ass’n for Stock
Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 379 (4th Cir. 2012)
(finding the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying a motion to amend a complaint filed over two and
a half years prior when significant discovery had occurred);
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 20 Filed: 04/03/2024

20 BHAGAT v. PTO

see also Matrix Capital Mgmt. Fund, LP v. BearingPoint,
Inc., 576 F.3d 172, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he further the
case progressed before judgment was entered, the more
likely it is that the amendment will prejudice the defend-
ant . . . .”).
Fifth and finally, it was not reversable error for Judge
Hilton and Magistrate Judge Davis to decline to recuse
themselves from the case. Bhagat did not request that ei-
ther judge do so at any point before the district court; thus,
she raises this issue for the first time on appeal. The only
arguments that Bhagat puts forth to establish that the
judges were biased are that their rulings were all “substan-
tially against” Bhagat and that “the court silenced [Bha-
gat] in hearing . . . and pressed her to withdraw the
action.” Appellant’s Br. at 66–67 (citing J.A. 9922–48; J.A.
9932). These arguments are insufficient to establish a sub-
stantial interest for either judge that would create a temp-
tation that would lead the average judge to be biased.
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 106 S. Ct. 1580, 1587 (1986);
see also Litkey v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)
(“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid
basis for a bias or partiality motion” and “judicial remarks
during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving
of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases,
ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge.”).
Thus, none of the district court actions in managing
discovery or trial procedure constituted an abuse of discre-
tion or a violation of the due process clause.
2. Dismissal
The district court did not err in dismissing Bhagat’s
damages, takings, and tortuous harassment claims for lack
of jurisdiction or in dismissing her causes of action for mis-
conduct, violation of a constitutional right, and entitlement
to mandamus relief for failure to state a claim on which
relief can be granted.
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 21 Filed: 04/03/2024

BHAGAT v. PTO 21

Bhagat’s claim for general damages and her claim for
damages under the Takings Clause are claims against the
United States for money, which fall under the Tucker Act.
28 U.S.C. § 1491. The Tucker Act waives sovereign im-
munity by granting jurisdiction to the Court of Federal
Claims over claims against the United States “for liqui-
dated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in
tort.” Id. District courts have concurrent jurisdiction over
these claims only when the claims do not exceed $10,000;
otherwise, the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive juris-
diction. E. Enters. v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498, 520 (1998); Sub-
urban Mortg. Assoc., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban
Dev., 480 F.3d 1116, 1121 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (explaining
that the Court of Federal Claim’s exclusive jurisdiction for
money damages over $10,000 comes from Congress not
granting any other court jurisdiction over these claims and
the “Little Tucker Act” that gives district courts concurrent
jurisdiction over Tucker Act claims that do not exceed
$10,000) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2)). 4 It is undisputed

4 Contrary to Bhagat’s contentions, this jurisdic-
tional scheme has not been overruled by the Supreme
Court, and the cases that Bhagat cites for this proposition
do not support her argument. Appellant’s Br. at 20–21 (cit-
ing Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162, 2179 (2019)
(removing the “state-litigation requirement” for takings
claims against local governments that required the takings
claim to be brought in state court before federal court); Gra-
ble & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545
U.S. 308, 312–14 (2005) (finding federal question jurisdic-
tion over a state law claim that involved contested issues
of federal law); Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Env’t Study
Grp., Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 71 n.15 (1978) (finding jurisdiction
in a district court under Section 1331(a) where the party
did not seek compensation for a takings claim, which the
Court clarified would be properly brought in the Court of
Claims, but instead requested a declaratory judgment).
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 22 Filed: 04/03/2024

22 BHAGAT v. PTO

that Bhagat seeks over $10,000 in damages; thus, the dis-
trict court did not err in finding it lacked jurisdiction over
her general damages claim and damages under the Tak-
ings Clause claim.
Similarly, there is no waiver of sovereign immunity for
claims for money damages under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338,
or 35 U.S.C. § 145 because none of these statutes contain
express and unequivocal waivers of sovereign immunity.
United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 (1976) (stating
that waivers of sovereign immunity must be expressed un-
equivocally). Bhagat fails to point to an express waiver of
sovereign immunity in any of the relevant statutes. Addi-
tionally, the PTO is not, as Bhagat contends, a “sue or be
sued” agency that operates similarly to a private corpora-
tion, and there is no “sue or be sued” clause in the Patent
Act. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 1.
The district court was also correct to dismiss Bhagat’s
allegations of misconduct, violations of constitutional
rights, and entitlement to mandamus relief for failure to
state a claim on which relief could be granted because none
rise above conclusory allegations.
To support her argument that the district court erred
in dismissing her claims for misconduct, constitutional vi-
olations, and entitlement to mandamus relief, Bhagat
points to numerous portions of her Amended Complaint
and essentially argues that she had a constitutional right
to have her Application issue as a valid patent and that the
PTO’s refusal to do so was a result of its bad faith and mis-
conduct. Appellant’s Br. at 22 (citing Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 2–
3, 11, 13, 36–37, 40–41, 45–46, 48–49, 55, and 56–63,
Prayer for Relief (b), (c), (d), and (f)). The portions of the
Amended Complaint that Bhagat points to merely critique
the PTO for rejecting her claims and the PTAB for main-
taining most of those rejections, and at no point does Bha-
gat identify specific false statements or actions of
misconduct from the PTO or cite to any portion of the
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 23 Filed: 04/03/2024

BHAGAT v. PTO 23

Constitution to support the PTO’s alleged violation of her
constitutional rights. Further, for mandamus relief, Bha-
gat failed to plead that she had a clear right to have her
Application issued as a valid patent and that there was no
alternative relief available—particularly because Bhagat
included claims for relief under § 145 in her complaint, ac-
knowledging that alternative relief existed. Am. Compl.
Prayer for Relief (c). Thus, the district court did not err in
finding that Bhagat failed to state a claim on these issues.
Finally, Congress did not clearly provide a right to a
jury trial in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, or 35 U.S.C. § 145,
and thus the district court correctly struck Bhagat’s re-
quest for a jury trial. See Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S.
156, 160–63 (1981) (“[I]f Congress waives the Govern-
ment’s immunity from suit . . . the plaintiff has a right to a
trial by jury only where that right is one of ‘the terms of
[the Government’s] consent to be sued’. . . . The appropri-
ate inquiry, therefore, is whether Congress clearly and un-
equivocally departed from its usual practice in this area,
and granted a right to trial by jury.”) (quoting United
States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 (1976); United States v.
Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980)).
B. Summary Judgment on Patent Ineligibility
The district court did not err as a matter of law in deny-
ing Bhagat’s motion to strike the PTO’s motion for sum-
mary judgment or in granting the PTO’s motion for
summary judgment.
1. Denial of Bhagat’s Motion to Strike
It was not an abuse of discretion for the district court
to determine that the PTO’s summary judgment motion
was not premature. See Harrods, 302 F.3d at 244 (“We re-
view for abuse of discretion the district court’s refusal to
allow [a party] the opportunity to engage in discovery prior
to the entry of summary judgment.”).
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 24 Filed: 04/03/2024

24 BHAGAT v. PTO

The Fourth Circuit makes clear that “[i]f a party be-
lieves that more discovery is necessary for it to demon-
strate a genuine issue of material fact, the proper course is
to file a Rule 56(f) affidavit” explaining that more time for
discovery is needed for that party to oppose the motion for
summary judgment. Id. While courts have, in some cases,
found that summary judgment was premature without the
opposing party filing a Rule 56(f) affidavit, in general, “the
failure to file an affidavit under Rule 56(f) is itself sufficient
grounds to reject a claim that the opportunity for discovery
was inadequate.” Id. (quoting Evans v. Techs. Applications
& Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 961 (4th Cir. 1996) (internal quo-
tations removed)). Here, Bhagat does not dispute that she
failed to file a Rule 56(f) affidavit. Further, this is not a
case where “the nonmoving party, through no fault of its
own, has had little or no opportunity to conduct discovery,”
which can sometimes justify a finding that summary judg-
ment was premature without a Rule 56(f) affidavit, because
Bhagat has had ample time to complete discovery and, as
previously discussed, chose to wait three months to begin
pursuing discovery. Id. Thus, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying to Bhagat’s motion to strike
the PTO’s motion for summary judgment as premature.
2. Grant of Summary Judgment
Further, the district court correctly granted the PTO’s
unopposed motion for summary judgment, since there were
no disputed issues of material fact to contradict the finding
that the Application claims were patent ineligible under
Section 101 and that the pending claims were unpatenta-
ble under Section 103. Bhagat did not file an opposition to
the PTO’s summary judgment motion and instead relies on
her briefing in support of her motion to strike to argue that
she raised issues of disputed fact. Appellant’s Br. 49–50.
However, Bhagat does not identify a single issue of dis-
puted fact in her motion to strike briefing; instead, she
merely included the conclusory statement that “the record
is rife with other facts [besides Dr. Harris’s testimony that
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 25 Filed: 04/03/2024

BHAGAT v. PTO 25

Bhagat moved to exclude] that are in serious dispute.”
Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Strike at 2, Bhagat v. USPTO
(No. 1:20-cv-01515), ECF 91. Thus, Bhagat has put forth
nothing to contradict the PTO’s account of the undisputed
facts in its summary judgment motion. See S.E.C. v. Far-
kas, 557 F. App’x 204, 207 (4th Cir. 2014) (holding that the
court is allowed to treat the movant’s facts as undisputed
when the nonmovant fails to dispute the movant’s asser-
tions of fact).
The district court therefore did not err in granting the
PTO’s motion for summary judgment that the Application
claims are patent ineligible under Section 101, or in the al-
ternative, that the pending claims are obvious under Sec-
tion 103.
The district court correctly found that the Application
claims were directed to a product of nature or abstract idea
under Alice step one and that no additional claim elements
transformed the ineligible subject matter into a patent-eli-
gible invention. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217; Mayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Lab’y, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012).
Bhagat put forth no evidence to contradict the PTO’s asser-
tion that the claimed nutritional formulations were the
same combination of nutrients found naturally in almonds;
on appeal, her only contention is that the Application ex-
pressly disclaims almonds when it says, “wherein omega-6
fatty acid(s) and antioxidant(s) are not any single specific
variety of a vegetable, a fruit, a nut, or a seed.” Appellant’s
Br. at 54 (quoting Application claim 82). However, limiting
the form of the servings of the nutritional formulations to
require a mixture of fatty acids and antioxidants—rather
than “any specific variety of a vegetable, a fruit, a nut, or a
seed”—does not change the undisputed fact that the nutri-
tional compositions Bhagat seeks to claim exist in nature.
Bhagat also does not dispute that claim 112 is directed to
the abstract idea of meal planning. Appellant’s Br. 52–57.
Thus, the district court did not err in finding that the
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 26 Filed: 04/03/2024

26 BHAGAT v. PTO

Application claims were directed to a product of nature and
an abstract idea.
Bhagat also fails to argue that the additional claim el-
ements such as packaging, labeling, administering, prepar-
ing, and computer-automating are not conventional
activities that are able to transform the Application into a
patent-eligible invention. Instead, she simply asserts that
the “claims as a whole are not well-understood” and relies
on the absence of a Section 102 rejection for lack of novelty
for this proposition. Appellant’s Br. 56–57. This is insuffi-
cient to preclude the district court from finding on sum-
mary judgment that the additional limitations were well-
understood and thus insufficient under Alice step two to
turn the patent ineligible subject matter into a protectable
invention. See Genetic Techs. Ltd v. Merial L.L.C., 818
F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he inventive concept
necessary at step two of the Mayo/Alice analysis cannot be
furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural
phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.”); PersonalWeb Techs.
LLC v. Google LLC, 8 F. 4th 1310, 1318 (Fed Cir. 2021)
(“[A] new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”). Thus,
the district court correctly found that the Application
claims were ineligible for patent protection under Section
101.
Finally, the district court’s conclusion that the Applica-
tion’s pending claims should alternatively be rejected on
Section 103 grounds was proper. Since Bhagat did not op-
pose the PTO’s motion for summary judgment or contradict
any of the PTO’s undisputed facts, it was not erroneous for
the district court to find that the prior art’s disclosure of
the nutritional formulations in the Application claims in
overlapping ranges established a presumption of obvious-
ness that Bhagat failed to overcome. The prior art discloses
the same nutrients claimed in Bhagat’s Application claims
in overlapping dosages, and she fails to put forth facts that
would establish teaching away or unexpected results. Bha-
gat provided no evidence in her motion to strike that the
Case: 23-1545 Document: 59 Page: 27 Filed: 04/03/2024

BHAGAT v. PTO 27

prior art taught away or led to unexpected results, and on
appeal argues that the presence of some formulations in
Morris in different dosages of the nutrients taught away
and relies on conclusory statements that the results were
unexpected. Bhagat’s belated arguments are insufficient
to preclude summary judgment.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we hold that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in issuing any of the chal-
lenged orders, did not err in dismissing Bhagat’s non-pa-
tent claims, and did not err in denying Bhagat’s motion to
strike the PTO’s motion for summary judgment or in grant-
ing summary judgment in favor of the PTO.
AFFIRMED