Defense to Patent Infringement if Acts Were Performed in a “Quasigovernmental” Capacity Pursuant to a Legal Obligation

02 December 2014 IP Litigation Current Blog

A recent Federal Circuit opinion highlights a defense that is available to defendants whose alleged infringement occurred through activities that were undertaken for the United States. In particular, where the United States Government requires private parties to perform quasigovernmental functions pursuant to a legal obligation, a patent owner’s exclusive remedy is to bring a claim against the United States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, rather than against the private party in a U.S. District Court.

In IRIS Corp. v. Japan Airlines Corp., _ F.3d _, No. 2010-1051 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the patent owner (“IRIS”) accused Japan Airlines Corporation (“JAL”) of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,111,506, titled “Method of Making an Improved Security Identification Document Including Contactless Communication Insert Unit.” According to IRIS, certain passports that JAL examined during pre-flight procedures were made using the ’506 Patent’s method, and, therefore, JAL was liable for infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(g). Notably, however, JAL examined the passports pursuant to federal law, “including the Enhanced Border Security Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1221 et seq., the Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, 19 C.F.R. § 122.75a(d), and certain international treaties.”

In the district court, JAL successfully moved to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that the United States had assumed liability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a). That statute states:

Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States . . . the owner’s remedy shall be by action against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture.

28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) (emphasis added). For alleged infringing activities to be considered “for the United States,” two requirements must be met:  1) the activity “is conducted for the Government,” and 2) the activity “is conducted with the authorization or consent of the Government.” The district court found that, in JAL’s case, both these criteria were satisfied. On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed.

As to the first criteria, the Federal Circuit reasoned (emphasis added):

[T]he government benefits here because JAL’s examination of passports improves the detection of fraudulent passports and reduces demands on government resources. This, in turn, directly enhances border security and improves the government’s ability to monitor the flow of people into and out of the country. When the government requires private parties to perform quasigovernmental functions, such as this one, there can be no question that those actions are undertaken “for the benefit of the government.”

Addressing the second criteria, the Federal Circuit noted that all the parties, as well as the United States, agreed that JAL could not perform its obligations under federal law without engaging in the allegedly infringing acts. The Federal Circuit found that “[u]nder such circumstances, the government has expressly authorized or consented to those activities.”

Ultimately concluding that JAL’s alleged infringement occurred “for the United States” under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of IRIS’s infringement claims.

As the Federal Circuit’s decision illustrates, when confronted with patent infringement allegations, defendants in highly regulated industries should consider whether their alleged infringing activity was performed in a quasigovernmental capacity or pursuant to a legal obligation under federal law. Where the alleged infringing conduct occurred for the United States, the defendant may be able to exit the litigation at the motion to dismiss stage and avoid protracted litigation.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Bad Holiday Season News! Estimates of an increase of Cyberattacks 20%!
13 December 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Driving the Future of Automotive Technology
12 December 2019
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Massachusetts Governor Proposes Facility Fee Ban
12 December 2019
Health Care Law Today
American Rule Prevails; PTO May Not Collect In-House Attorneys' Fees as "Expenses"
12 December 2019
IP Litigation Current
ACCC 46th Annual Meeting & Cancer Center Business Summit
04-05 March 2020
Washington, D.C.
Foley/Deloitte Compliance and Privacy Officer Roundtable
27 February 2020
Boston, MA
Let’s Talk Compliance
24 January 2020
Orlando, FL
New England Alliance Annual Meeting
15-17 January 2020
Woodstock, VT