Che v. Vidal

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Yanjun Che (Canada)
  • Defendant: Kathi Vidal, in her official capacity as Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (United States)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
• Case: Yanjun Che v. Kathi Vidal, No. 1:25-cv-01893, E.D. Va., 10/29/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Virginia because the Defendant is an officer of the United States acting in her official capacity, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia.
• Core Dispute: The Plaintiff, a patent applicant, seeks de novo judicial review of a final decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that affirmed an examiner's rejection of all claims in U.S. Patent Application No. 14/252,778.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns a method and system for generating energy from a static fluid by creating asymmetric pressure fields to convert gravitational potential energy into mechanical work.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint details a prolonged prosecution history for the application at issue, including multiple rejections by a USPTO examiner and two separate appeals to the PTAB, both of which affirmed the rejections on the grounds that the invention is an inoperable "perpetual motion machine." Plaintiff alleges these rejections ignore experimental evidence and contradict the USPTO's own prior grant of two patents to the same inventor for the same underlying physical mechanism.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 11,047,359 - "Gravitational Turbine Engine"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to provide a form of renewable energy that, unlike conventional hydropower, does not depend on flowing water resources and can operate using a static fluid, thereby turning "buildings and communities into a green power plant" (’359 Patent, col. 1:8-22).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a "static pressure turbine engine" that operates while submerged in a fluid like water (’359 Patent, col. 2:63-65). It uses a rotor that travels along a track. A key component is a "shielding device" fixed within the container that physically blocks the upward fluid pressure (buoyancy) from acting on the underside of the rotor as it passes through a specific portion of its path (’359 Patent, col. 3:25-30). This creates an "axisymmetric asymmetry": on one side of the track, the rotor is subject to both downward gravity and upward buoyancy, while on the shielded side, it is primarily subject only to gravity. This sustained difference in net force is intended to create a continuous rotational torque, which can be used to drive a generator (’359 Patent, col. 4:6-18; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The approach purports to extract usable energy directly from the gravitational potential energy inherent in a static column of fluid by mechanically manipulating hydrostatic forces. (Compl. ¶¶ on p.10, 12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent includes one independent claim (Claim 1).
• Claim 1 of the ’359 Patent recites an "energy conversion device" with the essential elements of:
  • A container filled with fluid.
  • First and second inclined support-guideway systems forming a "racetrack."
  • A shielding device fixed to the support system.
  • A transmission device comprising a rotor with fluid chambers.
  • An energy output shaft.
  • The device operates such that the "upper part of the rotor shields the pressure of the fluid" on a first fluid chamber, causing it to be "moveable under the gravity force," while the "lower part of the rotor is subjected to the pressure of the fluid" on a second fluid chamber, causing it to be "movable under the buoyance force." (’359 Patent, col. 8:1-col. 10:18).

U.S. Patent No. 12,066,001 - "Gravitational Turbine Engine"

Technology Synopsis

• The ’001 patent, a continuation of the application that led to the ’359 patent, claims a method for operating a similar turbine engine. The core technical principle is identical: using a shielding device to block upward buoyant force on one part of a rotor's path to create a differential force that drives continuous rotation and enhances power output. (’001 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:8-col. 10:13).

Asserted Claims

• The patent contains two independent claims (Claim 1 and Claim 13). Claim 1 describes a method of operating the engine, and Claim 13 describes the turbine generator system itself.

Accused Features

• This patent is cited as administrative precedent, with the Plaintiff arguing that the USPTO's grant of the ’001 patent constitutes "compelling administrative evidence of operability and enablement" for the same mechanism the agency rejected in the application at issue. (Compl. ¶ on p.26).

III. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "Shielding" upward buoyant force to create a "non-buoyant region."
• Context and Importance: The entire basis for the PTAB's rejection is its conclusion that the claimed invention is an inoperable "perpetual motion machine" that violates the laws of energy conservation (Compl. ¶¶ on p.7, 12). The plaintiff contends that the "loss-of-buoyancy method" is a valid application of Newtonian mechanics in an open gravitational system, not an attempt to create energy from nothing (Compl. ¶¶ on p.3, 10-11). Therefore, the scientific and legal interpretation of whether one can selectively "shield" or neutralize buoyancy to create a net downward force will be dispositive.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (supporting Plaintiff's view of an operable principle): The complaint and patents frame the invention as converting "unlimited gravitational field energy" by creating "asymmetric pressure fields" (Compl. ¶ on p.7; ’359 Patent, col. 1:15-18). This language suggests a focus on manipulating fundamental physical forces. The complaint provides summaries of five experiments intended to prove the "loss-of-buoyancy" effect is real and reproducible (Compl. ¶¶ on p.13-14).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (supporting USPTO's skepticism): The patents describe a specific mechanical structure: a physical plate (shielding device 1012) that blocks fluid from reaching the underside of a rotor (’359 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 3:25-30). Practitioners may focus on whether this specific mechanical arrangement can overcome countervailing forces such as friction, viscosity, and pressure leakage to produce net positive work, or if the overall system remains in equilibrium or requires more energy than it produces, which would align with the PTAB's finding of inoperability.

IV. Allegations of USPTO Error

The complaint alleges that the PTAB's decision to affirm the rejection of the patent application was based on multiple legal and procedural errors, including:

• Misapplication of Utility Law: Alleging the PTAB improperly equated the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. §101 with the need for a fully constructed, working prototype, rather than the correct standard of "specific, substantial, and credible utility" supported by empirical evidence or accepted scientific principles (Compl. ¶¶ on p.16).
• Failure to Apply Presumption of Operability: Arguing that once the applicant submitted five controlled experiments demonstrating the "loss-of-buoyancy" effect, the burden should have shifted to the USPTO to provide counter-evidence, which it failed to do (Compl. ¶¶ on p.17-18).
• Reliance on Incorrect Scientific Principles: Claiming the PTAB mischaracterized the invention as a closed system subject to thermodynamic objections, when it is an open system continuously interacting with Earth's gravitational field (Compl. ¶¶ on p.19).
• Disregard of Material Evidence: Asserting that the PTAB's decisions ignored the applicant's experimental data and, crucially, failed to consider or address the fact that the USPTO had already granted two patents (the ’359 and ’001 patents) on the same underlying mechanism (Compl. ¶¶ on p.22-23).
• Violation of Administrative Consistency: Contending that the PTAB's rejection of a mechanism previously deemed allowable by the same agency, without providing a reasoned explanation for the departure, renders the decision arbitrary and capricious (Compl. ¶¶ on p.25-26).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This case presents a fundamental dispute over patentable subject matter at the edge of known physics. The court's de novo review will likely focus on two central questions:

• A core issue will be one of scientific operability: Does the principle of "buoyancy shielding," as disclosed in Application No. 14/252,778 and embodied in the ’359 and ’001 patents, represent a credible and operable mechanism for energy conversion that is consistent with physical laws, or is the PTAB's conclusion that it is an impermissible "perpetual motion machine" correct?
• A key procedural question will be one of administrative consistency: Was the PTAB's decision to reject the application arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, given its failure to address or distinguish the USPTO's prior decision to grant two patents to the same inventor for what is alleged to be the identical energy-conversion mechanism?