U.S. Government Patent Infringement Precludes Induced Infringement

24 September 2015 PharmaPatents Blog
Authors: Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff

In Astornet Technologies, Inc. v. BAE Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissed of actions for induced infringement where the alleged direct infringer was the U.S. government. In particular, the court agreed that under 28 USC § 1498, the patentee’s “exclusive remedy for the alleged infringement was a suit against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims.”

The Patent At Issue

The patent at issue was Astornet’s U.S. Patent No. 7,639,844, directed to “[a]n automated access control system for securing airport vehicular gates and airport sterile areas.” The defendants or entities related thereto had entered into contracts with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) (a U.S. government agency) to supply “certain boarding-pass scanning systems.” Astornet asserted that TSA’s use of the equipment supplied by the defendants infringed the patents and that the defendants were liable for inducing infringement.

The district court granted the defendants motions to dismiss on several grounds, but the Federal Circuit upheld only the dismissals under 28 USC § 1498.

Remedies For Patent Infringement By The U.S. Government

As noted by the court, 28 USC § 1498(a) sets forth the only remedy available when the U.S. government infringes a patent:

Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the owner thereof … 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. ….

For the purposes of this section, the use or manufacture of an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States by a contractor … for the Government and with the authorization or consent of the Government, shall be construed as use or manufacture for the United States.

The court noted that the statue serves two purposes: (i) it waives sovereign immunity to permit a patent owner to recover damages for infringement “by or for the United States” and (ii) it protects contractors from liability for patent infringement committed on behalf of the United States. The court emphasized that the remedy provided in § 1498 is the “exclusive remedy” available when the U.S. government infringes a patent, and “squarely applies to Astornet’s allegations, since “[t]he direct infringement alleged as a prerequisite for the alleged indirect infringement” is TSA’s use of the contractor’s products.

The court left open the possibility that the contractors might be liable for direct infringement based on their own use of the products (such as for testing), but it seems to me like the contractors could establish that any testing was conducted “for the Government,” particularly if testing or verification of testing is required in their contracts.

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

New York Expands Pay Equity Law
22 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
The Face of DOL is New, the Name is Not; Trump Picks Scalia for Secretary of Labor
22 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Cloud security inadequate for Cyber threats, are you surprised?
19 July 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ