Michael Dunn v. John Doll (PDF) 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93630 Decided December 7, 2007 Judge LaPorte Mr. Dunn wrote a patent application. Mr. Dunn was not a happy camper when the patent examiner rejected his application. The rejection was, in Mr. Dunn’s words, “stupid.” Mr. Dunn sent in corrections, which should have been amendments. The examiner informed Mr. Dunn of his mistake, so Mr. Dunn hand wrote some amendments and sent them back to the examiner (no doubt accompanied by a note expressing his sincerest thanks for the all the help and constructive criticism bequeathed to him by the examiner). Unfortunately, despite the warm and fuzzy exchange to correct his application, a final action was issued denying Mr. Dunn’s application. Feeling a bit jilted by his examiner, Mr. Dunn asked for his $370 in fees back, as his application was “stupidly” rejected. However, Mr. Dunn saw blood in the water and asked for……….get this……$10 million dollars (insert maniacal laughter here) in punitive damages for a violation of due process. Essentially, Mr. Dunn’s claim is that his invention should not have been rejected and the rejection violated his constitutional rights. Sadly, Judge LaPorte was in no mood to humor Mr. Dunn, and his claim was dismissed for being frivolous. So Mr. Dunn was pronounced D-O-N-E.