A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Title | Primary Cite | Parallel Cites | Court or Jurisdiction | Docket Number(s) | Date | NOD Topics | Document Summary | Terms | |||||||||||||||||
2 | CellCast Technologies, LLC v. United States | 2018 WL 4088503, *2 | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 15-1307C ) | 8/28/2018 | Pending before the Court are two related motions---one, a motion by the defendants to compel depositions pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal... | Terms "the current deadline---a fact which has not been established---these costs are likely reimbursable in the event the plaintiffs succeed in this lawsuit. See ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498) . As the plaintiffs have pointed to no particularized prejudice they will suffer from the depositions going forward, and the defendants have adequately)" | |||||||||||||||||||
3 | Mynette Technologies, Inc. v. United States | 2018 WL 3954727, *3+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 16-1647) | 8/17/2018 | To facilitate review of this Memorandum Opinion And Order, the court has provided the following outline. I. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY. III. DISCUSSION.... | "of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same [seeking] recovery of reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture.'' ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) The March 30, 2018 Second Amended Complaint alleges that the ''United States, acting through the [United States] Department of State, the)" | |||||||||||||||||||
4 | Click-To-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc., YellowPages.com, LLC | --- F.3d ---- | 2018 WL 3893119, *6 | Fed.Cir. | (NO. 2015-1242) | 8/16/2018 | PATENTS - Patent and Trademark Office. Intervening ex parte reexamination of patent did not preclude application of statutory time bar to initiate inter partes review proceeding. | "because ''Congress could have easily specified the phrase 'sued for infringement' to require being sued for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 or otherwise excluded [ ) 28 U.S.C.] § 1498) suits from the definition of 'sued for infringement,' but it did not do so''b. Legislative History The legislative history of §)" | ||||||||||||||||||
5 | Davidson v. United States | 138 Fed.Cl. 159, 161+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 13-942C) | 6/29/2018 | COPYRIGHTS - Art and Architecture. Replica of Statute of Liberty located in front of Las Vegas casino was an original, creative work that was subject of valid copyright... | "these will not be employed as an artificial inflator nor deflator of the fair market value at the time the negotiation would have taken place. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(b)) [16]99 Copyrights and Intellectual Property 99I Copyrights 99I(J) Infringement 99I(J)2 Remedies 99 72 Actions for Infringement 99 87)" | |||||||||||||||||||
6 | TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc. | 2018 WL 3059868, *1+ | E.D.Va. | (NO. 1:10-CV-115) | 6/19/2018 | Background: Patentee brought action against alleged infringer, alleging infringement of patent covering computer security system. Patentee moved for partial summary judgment of... | "of that product was developed in response to a contract with the federal government and for its use, as required for defense of government sales. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498) [13]291 Patents 291 k.The coverage of the statute codifying the government sales defense and presenting an affirmative defense to patent)" | |||||||||||||||||||
7 | FastShip, LLC v. United States | 892 F.3d 1298, 1298+ | 127 U.S.P.Q.2d 1165, 1165+ | Fed.Cir. | (NO. 2017-2248 , 2017-2249) | 6/5/2018 | PATENTS - Jurisdiction. Product is ”manufactured” under statute on jurisdiction of Court of Federal Claims in patent cases when made to include each limitation of invention. | provides a cause of action against the United States and, at the same time, protects government contractors against infringement liability and remedies where it applies. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498) [2]291 Patents 291IV Patent Applications and Proceedings 291IV(B) Examination 291 951 Renewal of Application 291 953 k. Continuation or divisional) | ||||||||||||||||||
8 | Ideal Innovations, Inc. v. United States | 138 Fed.Cl. 244, 248+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 17-889C) | 5/31/2018 | PATENTS - Limitations. Tolling of limitations period applicable to patent infringement claim against United States ended when administrative claim was denied. | suit against the United States by the owner of a United States patent to recover compensation for the unauthorized use of the patented invention. See ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498) Pursuant to this statute, the United States may be held liable for patent infringement if, in relevant part, a contractor for the) | |||||||||||||||||||
9 | SecurityPoint Holdings, Inc. v. United States | 138 Fed.Cl. 101, 101+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 11-268C) | 5/18/2018 | PATENTS - Assignments and Licensing. Purported patent holder had standing to bring action for infringement of patent mistakenly assigned to related entity. | of patent ownership, and the suit is fundamentally one for damages under patent laws, the court has subject matter jurisdiction to decide preliminary contract question. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498) [3]393 United States 393II Liabilities of and Claims Against United States 393II(H) Court of Federal Claims (Formerly Claims Court and) | |||||||||||||||||||
10 | ACME Worldwide Enterprises, Inc. v. United States | 137 Fed.Cl. 469, 472+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 17-843C) | 4/11/2018 | PATENTS - Parties. Intervention by alleged infringer in patentee's action against United States would not prejudice rights and would not delay adjudication. | "is located in Orlando, Florida.On April 21, 2015, ACME filed a patent infringement suit against ISM in the Florida district court. ISM then asserted ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) as an affirmative defense and moved for summary judgment. In its motion for summary judgment, ISM explained that the issue was)" | |||||||||||||||||||
11 | Golden v. United States | 137 Fed.Cl. 155, 167+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 13-307C) | 3/29/2018 | PATENTS - Biotechnology. Federal agency's funding grants did not establish subject matter jurisdiction over patent infringement claims against federal government. | by the government directly and/or (2) unlicensed use or manufacture of a patented invention for the government and with the government's authorization or consent.) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) [21]393 United States 393II Liabilities of and Claims Against United States 393II(H) Court of Federal Claims (Formerly Claims Court) | |||||||||||||||||||
12 | Haddad v. United States | 136 Fed.Cl. 572, 577+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 17-307) | 2/28/2018 | PATENTS - Assignments and Licensing. Patentee's right to sue United States for patent infringement was barred by Anti-Assignment of Claims Act until date of agreement returning his... | a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the owner thereof or lawful right. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) [9]291 Patents 291VI Patent Rights and Duties 291VI(C) Assignments and Other Transfers 291 1475 k. Rights and liabilities of) | |||||||||||||||||||
13 | Bondyopadhyay v. United States | 136 Fed.Cl. 114, 121+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 14-147C) | 2/9/2018 | PATENTS - Telecommunications. Claims of patent directed to geodesic sphere phased array antenna system used for satellite communications was not directly infringed. | on November 8, 2017, and the matter is now ripe for disposition.Discussion Jurisdiction This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) , which provides in relevant part:Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used) | |||||||||||||||||||
14 | Rohland v. United States | 136 Fed.Cl. 55, 69 | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 17-1175C) | 1/26/2018 | GOVERNMENT - United States. State prisoner's suit seeking $1 billion from federal government for constitutional violations and breach of contract was jurisdictionally barred. | Particular Claims, Jurisdiction 393 1007 k. Patents, use or infringement.Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to entertain patent infringement claims against the federal government. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) [45]393 United States 393II Liabilities of and Claims Against United States 393II(H) Court of Federal Claims (Formerly Claims Court) | |||||||||||||||||||
15 | Jackson v. Climmer | 2018 WL 438926, *2 | D.Or. | (NO. 3:17-CV-01062-SB) | 1/16/2018 | United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on November 22, 2107. ECF 24. Judge Beckerman recommended that Defendants' motion... | he sought copyright registration in his Complaint or the attached documentation. Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction over any claims plaintiff might be asserting pursuant to ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b)) With respect to Plaintiff's motion for money damages (ECF 22), this relates to Plaintiff's copyright claim. Accordingly, this motion is denied) | |||||||||||||||||||
16 | American Innotek, Inc. v. United States | 706 Fed.Appx. 686, 686 | Fed.Cir. | (NO. 2017-1178) | 12/19/2017 | American Innotek, Inc., owns U.S. Patent 5,116,139. It sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1498, asserting that the government was using the... | Stoll, Circuit Judges.Taranto, Circuit Judge.American Innotek, Inc., owns U.S. Patent 5,116,139 It sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims under ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498) , asserting that the government was using the subject matter of claims 1–4 and 17 of the patent without a license from) | |||||||||||||||||||
17 | Min Yu Xiao v. United States | 2017 WL 5247434, *2 | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 17-1061C (PRO SE)) | 11/13/2017 | Pro se plaintiff Min Yu Xiao filed a complaint in this court on August 3, 2017. In it, Mr. Min states that he is an “83–year-old ․ U.S. Citizen [who] does not speak English.” He... | the appropriate use and publication fees. It does not mandate the payment of money by the federal government. Moreover, although not mentioned by Mr. Min, ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498) , the jurisdictional statute providing this court with authority to resolve allegations of patent infringement against the United States, does not provide the) | |||||||||||||||||||
18 | Sacchetti v. United States | 711 Fed.Appx. 979, 979+ | Fed.Cir. | (NO. 2017-1484) | 10/6/2017 | GOVERNMENT - Tort Claims. Claim that government infringed on patent for dual handset telephones was barred by six-year limitations period to file claims against government. | limitations period to file claims against the government began to run, when government began to use owners' patented dual-handset telephones to provide interpretation service. ) 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1498) 2501 291 Patents 291X Patents Enumerated 291 2092 k. Design.US Patent D382,264. Cited.291 Patents 291X Patents Enumerated 291 2091) | |||||||||||||||||||
19 | Crye Precision LLC v. Bennettsville Printing | 2017 WL 4325817, *4 | E.D.N.Y. | (NO. 15CV00221FBRER) | 9/27/2017 | Crye Precision LLC and its sister company Lineweight LLC (collectively, “Crye”) sued Bennettsville Printing (“Bennettsville”) for breach of contract; trade dress infringement under... | Complaint on January 15, 2015. On August 27, 2015, the Court dismissed Crye's state law claims for unjust enrichment and unfair competition as precluded by ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) . On June 17, 2016, Crye filed its Amended Complaint, which included claims for (1) declaratory relief; (2) breach of the 2014) | |||||||||||||||||||
20 | Morphotrust USA, LLC v. United States | 2017 WL 4081812, *1 | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 16-227C) | 9/15/2017 | Pending is defendant's July 5, 2017 motion for leave of court to notice an additional third party, Logistics Systems Incorporated (“LSI”), pursuant to Rule 14(b). We previously... | is unnecessary. Because defendant has not shown good cause, we deny the motion for leave to give notice to LSI.This is an action under ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498) for recovery of compensation for the allegedly unlicensed use of plaintiff's patents with respect to certain identity cards by the U.S. Citizenship) | |||||||||||||||||||
21 | Beacon Adhesives, Inc. v. United States | 134 Fed.Cl. 26, 32+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 16-909) | 9/6/2017 | PATENTS - Science and Technology. Claim terms were construed for patent directed to method of manufacturing ammunition articles comprising light-curable moisture-preventative... | of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same [seeking] recovery of reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture.'' ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) The August 1, 2016 Complaint alleges that the Department of Defense and other agencies, without license or lawful right to use) | |||||||||||||||||||
22 | Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service | 868 F.3d 1350, 1355+ | 123 U.S.P.Q.2d 1813, 1813+ | Fed.Cir. | (NO. 2016-1502) | 8/28/2017 | 126. Review, practice and procedure | PATENTS - Computers and Electronics. Postal Service was ”sued for infringement” for purpose of covered business method (CBM) review when assignee filed Claims Court suit against... | PTO to act absent petition filed by party with requisite standing and questions related to party's standing touched upon ultimate authority of PTO to act. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) 35 U.S.C.A. §§ 324(e)329[4]15A Administrative Law and Procedure 15AV Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions 15AV(A) In) | |||||||||||||||||
23 | 3rd Eye Surveillance, LLC v. United States | 2017 WL 3530126, *2 | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 15-501C) | 8/17/2017 | In this patent case, pending before the court is the government's motion for a protective order and order limiting preliminary discovery (“Def.'s Mot.”), ECF No. 157. The... | airport-related document requests because plaintiffs may only bring claims regarding potentially infringing systems that are ''used or manufactured by or for the United States.'' ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) The government next claims that the court should not include the airport security monitoring system manufactured by Hitachi Data Systems Federal) | |||||||||||||||||||
24 | Racing Optics, Inc. v. Clear Defense, LLC | 2017 WL 3242258, *1+ | M.D.N.C. | (NO. 1:16-CV-288) | 7/28/2017 | Plaintiff, Racing Optics, Inc. (“Racing Optics”), initiated this action against Defendant, Clear Defense, LLC (“Clear Defense”), alleging patent infringement in violation of the... | 35 U.S.C. § 1. (ECF No. 1.) Before the Court are four motions: (1) Clear Defense's Motion for Summary Judgment on its First Defense under ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498) , (ECF No. 28); (2) Racing Optics' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to Dismiss Defendant's First Affirmative Defense under ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498) | |||||||||||||||||||
25 | 3rd Eye Surveillance, LLC v. United States | 133 Fed.Cl. 273, 276+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 15-501C) | 7/26/2017 | 98. ---- Accrual of claim, limitations, practice and procedure | PATENTS - Assignments and Licensing. Documents regarding systems for which patent infringement claims against government were barred by Assignment of Claims Act were not... | compulsory license to a United States patent as of the instant the invention is first used or manufactured by the government. U.S. Const. Amend. 5 ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) [2]148 Eminent Domain 148I Nature, Extent, and Delegation of Power 148 2 What Constitutes a Taking; Police and Other Powers) | ||||||||||||||||||
26 | 3rd Eye Surveillance, LLC v. United States | 2017 WL 2609233, *2+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 15-501C) | 6/16/2017 | Pending before the court is plaintiffs' motion to compel the government to produce documents and overrule objections (“Pls.' Mot. to Compel Def.”), ECF No. 126. Plaintiffs first... | claims based at U.S. embassies are outside the jurisdiction of this court, however, because they ''aris[e] in a foreign country'' within the meaning of ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(c)) See Leonardo v. United States, 55 Fed. Cl. 344, 354 (2003) (interpreting ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(c) ) analogously to identical language) | |||||||||||||||||||
27 | Silver Buckle Mines, Inc. v. United States | 132 Fed.Cl. 77, 97 | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 13-476C) | 5/23/2017 | GOVERNMENT - United States. Unpatented nonplacer lode mining claim holder's illegal exaction claim against United States was not barred by voluntary payment doctrine. | intervenor claims, see, e.g.M.E.S., Inc. v. United States, 104 Fed.Cl. 620, 627 (2012), or in certain patent infringement disputes involving a government contractor under ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) see, e.g.Advanced Software Design Corp. v. Fed. Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 583 F.3d 1371, 1375–76 (Fed. Cir) | |||||||||||||||||||
28 | Cascades Projection LLC v. Epson America, Inc. | 864 F.3d 1309, 1316 | 122 U.S.P.Q.2d 1633, 1633 | Fed.Cir. | (NO. 2017-1517 , 2017-1518) | 5/11/2017 | Appellant Cascades Projection LLC filed a petition for hearing en banc. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by appellees Epson America, Inc. and Sony... | the government itself, without just compensation, any more than it can appropriate or use without compensation land which has been patented to a private purchaser ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) (granting the United States Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to adjudicate patent infringement suits against the federal government under a takings) | ||||||||||||||||||
29 | Crye Precision LLC v. Duro Textiles, LLC | 689 Fed.Appx. 104, 109 | 2nd Cir.(N.Y.) | (NO. 16-1333-CV) | 5/3/2017 | COMMERCIAL LAW - Contracts. Non-compete provision that was unreasonable and contrary to public policy would not be enforced, despite sophistication of the parties. | non-compete clause. The district court determined that this request was effectively a patent infringement claim that belongs in the Court of Federal Claims. See ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) . Having determined that the non-compete clause was unenforceable, we need not address this issue.CONCLUSION We have considered all of) | |||||||||||||||||||
30 | FastShip, LLC v. United States | 131 Fed.Cl. 592, 607+ | 123 U.S.P.Q.2d 1207, 1207+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 12-484C) | 4/28/2017 | 65. ---- Miscellaneous cases, infringement, patents 111. ---- Reasonable royalty rate, damages, practice and procedure | PATENTS - Transportation. Navy directly infringed patents directed to large fast ships with semi-planing monohull design and waterjet propulsion. | compulsory license to a United States patent as of the instant the invention is first used or manufactured by the government. U.S. Const. Amend. 5 ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) [2]393 United States 393II Liabilities of and Claims Against United States 393II(B) Immunity in General 393 459 Particular Claims) | |||||||||||||||||
31 | UUSI, LLC v. United States | 131 Fed.Cl. 244, 253+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 12-216C) | 4/17/2017 | PATENTS - Transportation. Patent claim terms were construed in patent assignees' lawsuit against United States for alleged infringement of patents. | the PTAB's claim constructions in its Institution Decision are subject to change.Discussion Jurisdiction The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) . That statute provides in relevant part:Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is) | |||||||||||||||||||
32 | Juliet Marine Systems, Inc. v. United States | 2017 WL 1193702, *1+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 15-747C) | 3/31/2017 | The government has filed a motion for leave to amend its answer to assert a defense of patent invalidity in this case arising under the Invention Secrecy Act (the Act), 35 U.S.C.... | The plain text of the Act, however, makes clear that the government may avail itself of any defense it may plead in an action under ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498) 35 U.S.C. § 183 It is undisputed that one such defense available in an action under ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498) is patent) | |||||||||||||||||||
33 | Amos v. United States | 2017 WL 946302, *1+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 16-1094C) | 3/10/2017 | Damich, Senior Judge On September 1, 2016, Plaintiff, Carl Raymond Amos, filed a complaint pro se against the United States under claims for breach of copyright under 28 U.S.C. §... | Judge On September 1, 2016, Plaintiff, Carl Raymond Amos, filed a complaint pro se against the United States under claims for breach of copyright under ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498) , violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (17 U.S.C. § 1203 1204), Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125), as well as) | |||||||||||||||||||
34 | United States and the Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund v. Cytogel Pharma, LLC | 2017 WL 479550, *1 | E.D.La. | (NO. CV 16-13987) | 2/6/2017 | Before the Court is a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by Counterclaim-Defendant The United States of America. ... | a)12 In its motion to dismiss, the Government argues Section 271 does not create a cause of action against the government and that, although ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498) does create an infringement action for ''reasonable and entire compensation'' against the Government, Rule 13 does not permit an affirmative counterclaim seeking) | |||||||||||||||||||
35 | Hitkansut LLC v. United States | 130 Fed.Cl. 353, 354+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 12-303C) | 1/27/2017 | 65. ---- Miscellaneous cases, infringement, patents 111. ---- Reasonable royalty rate, damages, practice and procedure 120. Interest, practice and procedure | PATENTS - Damages. Patentee was entitled to fixed $200,000 fee with no further compensation for government's compulsory nonexclusive license on patent. | compulsory license to a United States patent as of the instant the invention is first used or manufactured by the government. U.S. Const. Amend. 5 ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) [2]393 United States 393II Liabilities of and Claims Against United States 393II(A) In General 393 403 Particular Liabilities and) | ||||||||||||||||||
36 | Brookwood Companies, Inc. v. Alston & Bird LLP | 49 N.Y.S.3d 10, 11+ | 146 A.D.3d 662, 662+ 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00535, 00535+ | N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. | (NO. 2482 , 653723/14) | 1/26/2017 | TORTS - Negligence. Law firm's evidentiary decision to rely on patentee's expert was reasonable course of action. | there were no other known noninfringing methods of complying with government's specifications, would have made difference in disposition of motion was, at best, unduly speculative. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A[4]45 Attorney and Client 45III Duties and Liabilities of Attorney to Client 45 109 k) | ||||||||||||||||||
37 | Bondyopadhyay v. United States | 129 Fed.Cl. 793, 800+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 14-147C) | 1/18/2017 | PATENTS - Telecommunications. Claim term was construed for patent directed to geodesic sphere phased array antenna system that was allegedly infringed by United States Air Force. | subarray of planar antenna element units.Def.'s Br. App., at GA136–37.Discussion Jurisdiction This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) , which provides in relevant part:Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used) | |||||||||||||||||||
38 | American Innotek, Inc. v. United States | 129 Fed.Cl. 444, 445 | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 11-223C) | 12/5/2016 | PATENTS - Consumer Goods. Patentee lacked extraordinary circumstances justifying relief from final judgment that claimed patent was invalid as obvious. | this Court's judgment finding Claims 1–4, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 5,116,139 invalid as obvious and denying Plaintiff's claim of patent infringement under ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498 (2012)) Am. Innotek, Inc. v. United States, 128 Fed.Cl. 135, 168–69 Plaintiff argues that this Court erred in finding invalidity because) | |||||||||||||||||||
39 | Bruhn Newtech, Inc. v. United States | 129 Fed.Cl. 656, 668+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 16-783C) | 12/2/2016 | 50. Government ownership of patent, patents | GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS - Performance and Breach. Contractor adequately stated breach contract claim against Marine Corps for transferring copies of software to armed forces of South... | corporation all copyrights and other proprietary interests in software and that only afforded contractor non-exclusive right to sell, market, lease, demonstrate, or distribute software. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(b)) [11]393 United States 393II Liabilities of and Claims Against United States 393II(B) Immunity in General 393 459 Particular Claims) | ||||||||||||||||||
40 | Advanced Aerospace Technologies, Inc. v. United States | 129 Fed.Cl. 525, 528+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 12-85 C) | 11/30/2016 | 51. Government employees, patents | PATENTS - Industrial Equipment. Government employment or service jurisdictional bar did not apply to patent infringement action against United States. | of the Court of Federal Claims over a patent infringement suit must be evaluated in light of the scope of each asserted patent claim individually. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) [10]393 United States 393II Liabilities of and Claims Against United States 393II(H) Court of Federal Claims (Formerly Claims Court) | ||||||||||||||||||
41 | Golden v. United States | 129 Fed.Cl. 630, 635+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 13-307C) | 11/30/2016 | 43. Use or manufacture, patents 49. ---- Miscellaneous cases, authorization or consent, patents | PATENTS - Parties. Manufacture and use of accused device was ”for the Government,” as required for Court of Federal Claims to have jurisdiction. | giving the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to adjudicate patent infringement claims against the United States if it is for the benefit of the Government. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) [4]393 United States 393II Liabilities of and Claims Against United States 393II(H) Court of Federal Claims (Formerly Claims Court) | ||||||||||||||||||
42 | Sacchetti v. United States | 129 Fed.Cl. 307, 319+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 15-1399C) | 11/16/2016 | 98. ---- Accrual of claim, limitations, practice and procedure | PATENTS - Parties. Executor of deceased plaintiff's estate was not a proper party, and thus could not be substituted for deceased plaintiff in action against Government. | In general.A cause of action alleging patent infringement against the Government and its contractors accrues when the accused instrumentality is first available for use. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) [21]393 United States 393II Liabilities of and Claims Against United States 393II(H) Court of Federal Claims (Formerly Claims Court) | ||||||||||||||||||
43 | Jeter v. President of the United States | 670 Fed.Appx. 493, 493 | 9th Cir.(Nev.) | (NO. 15-15416) | 11/2/2016 | Adele T. Jeter, a.k.a. Adele Jeter–Wheaton, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction her action alleging copyright... | United States and individuals acting on behalf of the United States, and the Court of Federal Claims therefore has exclusive jurisdiction over those claims. See ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b)) The district court properly dismissed Jeter's tort and unjust enrichment claims because Jeter failed to show that she exhausted her administrative) | |||||||||||||||||||
44 | Securitypoint Holdings, Inc. v. United States | 129 Fed.Cl. 25, 28 | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 11-268C) | 10/28/2016 | PATENTS - Industrial Equipment. Patent teaching system of recycling trays through security screening checkpoints by use of movable carts was valid as nonobvious . | Patent validity; Obviousness; Graham factors; Secondary considerations; Objective indicia of nonobviousness; hindsight bias.OPINION BRUGGINK, Judge.This is a patent infringement action brought pursuant to ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498 (2012)) Plaintiff, SecurityPoint Holdings, Inc. (''SecurityPoint''), alleges that the Transportation Security Administration (''TSA'') has infringed claims 1-4, 6-9, and 12) | |||||||||||||||||||
45 | Haddad v. United States | 128 Fed.Cl. 373, 374+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 15-1139C , 15-1140C) | 9/30/2016 | PATENTS - Industrial Equipment. Assignor of patent related to airport vehicular gate entry access system lacked standing to pursue patent infringement claims against United States. | failed to establish ownership of patent at inception of his lawsuit, as he had transferred all his rights in patent prior to filing infringement claims. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) 291 Patents 291X Patents Enumerated 291 2091 k. In general; utility.US Patent 7,639,844. Cited.Patent Infringement, 28 U.S.C. § 1498) | |||||||||||||||||||
46 | Proxtronics Dosimetry, LLC v. United States | 128 Fed.Cl. 656, 672 | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 15-1589) | 9/30/2016 | GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS - Preferences and Set-Asides. Bid protestor waived right to protest contract awarded in competitive procurement that was not set aside for small business. | the Lanham Act's specific grant of jurisdiction to the district courts trumps the general jurisdictional grant to this court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1491 and ) 1498) [18][19]Moreover, plaintiff's attempt to repackage its Lanham Act claims as bid protest claims is unavailing. Plaintiff requests that this court make anticompetitive findings) | |||||||||||||||||||
47 | American Innotek, Inc. v. United States | 128 Fed.Cl. 135, 151+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 11-223C) | 9/22/2016 | PATENTS - Medical Devices and Procedures. Patent for bags for containment and disposal of bodily fluids was invalid as obvious in light of prior art. | of Patents 393 406(1) k. In general; remedy of patent owner.Remedy in patent infringement actions against United States is limited to monetary damages. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) [2]393 United States 393II Liabilities of and Claims Against United States 393II(H) Court of Federal Claims (Formerly Claims Court) | |||||||||||||||||||
48 | Liberty Ammunition, Inc. v. United States | 835 F.3d 1388, 1391+ | 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1830, 1830+ | Fed.Cir. | (NO. 2015-5057 , 2015-5061) | 8/26/2016 | PATENTS - Science and Technology. Projectiles did not meet ”reduced area of contact” or ”intermediate opposite ends” limitation of firearms projectile patent, barring infringement... | Federal Claims that ammunition rounds used by the United States Army embody the claims of Liberty Ammunition, Inc.'s U.S. Patent No. 7,748,325 without authorization, violating ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498) The Government argues that the trial court erred in construing several claim terms and that, when these terms are construed correctly, the) | ||||||||||||||||||
49 | Astornet Technologies, Inc. v. BAE Systems, Inc. | 201 F.Supp.3d 721, 724+ | D.Md. | (NO. 14-CV-0245) | 8/4/2016 | 122. Attorney fees, practice and procedure | PATENTS - Attorney Fees. Government contractor's requested hourly rates were reasonable on attorneys' fees motion as prevailing party in suit for inducing patent infringement. | exclusive remedy for alleged infringement was suit against United States in Court of Federal Claims, and yet he continued to pursue suit in district court. ) 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1498(a)) 1927[5]170A Federal Civil Procedure 170AXX Sanctions 170AXX(B) Grounds for Imposition 170A 2767 Unwarranted, Groundless or Frivolous Papers or) | ||||||||||||||||||
50 | Haddad v. United States | 127 Fed.Cl. 565, 568 | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 15-1139C , 15-1140C) | 7/14/2016 | PATENTS - Assignments and Licensing. Assignor of patent related to airport vehicular gate entry access system lacked standing to sue United States for alleged infringement. | of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same, [seeking] recovery of reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture.'' ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) [1][2][3]As a threshold matter, the court must consider jurisdiction before reaching the substantive merits of a case. See) | |||||||||||||||||||
51 | Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp | 192 F.Supp.3d 332, 333 | E.D.N.Y. | (NO. 06CV6415ENVRLM , 08CV4446ENVRLM) | 6/29/2016 | PATENTS - Consumer Goods. Company that created standards for dual-access luggage lock system did not infringe patents describing method of airline luggage screening. | once more. In the first action, Travel Sentry, and in the second, all defendants, have moved for summary judgment on grounds of noninfringement, invalidity, and ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498) In both actions, Tropp has filed cross-motions for summary judgment on infringement, which prompted motions to strike certain exhibits. For the) | |||||||||||||||||||
52 | Ross-Hime Designs, Inc. v. United States | 126 Fed.Cl. 299, 310+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 11-201C) | 4/29/2016 | PATENTS - Industrial Equipment. Disputed claim terms were construed for patents related to anthropomorphic ”master-slave” robotic manipulators. | inventor: U.S. Patent Nos. 4,821,594 5,692,412 5,845,540 5,967,580 5,979,264 6,105,455, and 6,418,811 Discussion Jurisdiction The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) , which provides in relevant part:Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used) | |||||||||||||||||||
53 | Crye Precision LLC v. Duro Textiles, LLC | 2016 WL 1629343, *3+ | S.D.N.Y. | (NO. 15CV1681 (DLC)) | 4/22/2016 | This action arises from a dispute between a licensor of a patented camouflage pattern and a former licensee. The licensee, defendant Duro Textiles, LLC (“Duro”), is a printer that... | pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Duro's motion was premised on the ground that, pursuant to ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498) , Crye's claims directed to Duro's manufacture and sale of Scorpion W2 products for the benefit of the Government could be brought only) | |||||||||||||||||||
54 | Demodulation, Inc. v. United States | 126 Fed.Cl. 499, 501+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 11-236C) | 4/18/2016 | 65. ---- Miscellaneous cases, infringement, patents | PATENTS - Science and Technology. Patentee's failure to identify any accused infringing products was fatal to its patent infringement claims against United States. | holder's failure to identify any accused infringing products being used or manufactured by the government was fatal to its patent infringement claims against United States. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) [8]291 Patents 291V Construction and Operation of Patents 291V(A) In General 291 1314 Claims and Limitations; Language of Patent) | ||||||||||||||||||
55 | American Innotek, Inc. v. United States | 126 Fed.Cl. 468, 473+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 11-223C) | 4/12/2016 | PATENTS - Consumer Goods. Scope of funnel means could not be narrowed to ”wholly prevent escape” of unsequestered fluid from interior of bag. | Cases, Contexts, and Questions 170B 3906 k. Intellectual property.The Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over patent infringement actions against the federal government. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) [2]393 United States 393II Liabilities of and Claims Against United States 393II(A) In General 393 403 Particular Liabilities and) | |||||||||||||||||||
56 | 3rd Eye Surveillance, LLC v. United States | 126 Fed.Cl. 266, 267+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 15-501C) | 4/5/2016 | 92. Persons entitled to maintain action, practice and procedure | PATENTS - Parties. Government sufficiently stated that third-party entities had interest in patent infringement action such that notice to them was appropriate. | claims of patent infringement by licensee and assignee alleging that federal agencies infringed three patents related to security alarm system that incorporated real-time video. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) [2]393 United States 393II Liabilities of and Claims Against United States 393II(A) In General 393 403 Particular Liabilities and) | ||||||||||||||||||
57 | CANVS Corporation v. United States | 126 Fed.Cl. 106, 109+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 10-540 C) | 3/31/2016 | PATENTS - Industrial Equipment. Claim term was construed in patent directed toward device optimizing user's ability to see in low-light conditions. | for U.S. Patent No. 6,911,652; single term in dispute OPINION AND ORDER CAMPBELL–SMITH, Chief Judge This is a patent infringement action brought, pursuant to ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) , by CANVS Corporation (CANVS or plaintiff) against the United States, acting through the Department of the Army (government or defendant).1) | |||||||||||||||||||
58 | Floyd v. United States | 125 Fed.Cl. 183, 185+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 15-793C) | 2/24/2016 | 43. Use or manufacture, patents | PATENTS - Computers and Electronics. Police department's use of accused device for taking electronic fingerprints to access FBI fingerprint data was not use by United States. | to any United States patent as of the instant the invention is first used or manufactured by or for the government. U.S. Const. Amend. 5 ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498) [11]393 United States 393II Liabilities of and Claims Against United States 393II(A) In General 393 403 Particular Liabilities and Claims) | ||||||||||||||||||
59 | Vir2us, Inc. v. Invincea, Inc. | 2016 WL 8711512, *1 | 2016 Markman 8711512, *8711512 | E.D.Va. | (NO. 2:15CV162) | 2/19/2016 | On Monday, February I, 2016, the Court conducted a Markman hearing for the purpose of construing ten (10) disputed terms in the patents at issue. Upon consideration of the parties'... | of Failure to State a Claim, Non-Infringement, Invalidity, Prosecution History Estoppel, Limitation on Damages, No Right to Injunctive Relief, Laches, Equitable Estoppel and Waiver, ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) Answer ¶¶ 34–44.Defendants also alleged counterclaims against Vir2us, asserting that Plaintiff has infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,839,422 (''the '422) | ||||||||||||||||||
60 | Zoltek Corp. v. U.S. | 815 F.3d 1302, 1304 | 117 U.S.P.Q.2d 1866, 1866 | Fed.Cir. | (NO. 2014-5082) | 2/19/2016 | PATENTS - Science and Technology. Reissue patent for method of producing carbon fiber sheet products was not invalid for obviousness. | ruling in Zoltek I. This court recognized the liability of the United States for infringement by acts that are performed with its authorization and consent. ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) ''Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by or for) | ||||||||||||||||||
61 | Vir2us, Inc. v. Invincea, Inc. | 2016 WL 453486, *1 | 2016 Markman 453486, *453486 | E.D.Va. | (NO. 2:15CV162) | 2/5/2016 | On Monday, February 1, 2016, the Court conducted a Markman hearing for the purpose of construing ten (10) disputed terms in the patents at issue. Upon consideration of the parties'... | of Failure to State a Claim, Non-Infringement, Invalidity, Prosecution History Estoppel, Limitation on Damages, No Right to Injunctive Relief, Laches, Equitable Estoppel and Waiver, ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) Answer ¶¶ 34-44.Defendants also alleged counterclaims against Vir2us, asserting that Plaintiff has infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,839,422 (''the '422) | ||||||||||||||||||
62 | Mykey Technology Inc. v. Intelligent Computer Solutions, Inc. | 2016 WL 6662718, *1+ | C.D.Cal. | (NO. CV 13-2461-AG (PLAX) , MDL 2461) | 2/1/2016 | On October 21, 2015, and November 19, 2015, the Court entered orders that required defendant CRU Acquisition Group, LLC (“CRU” or “defendant”) to produce certain documents,... | relevant Court Orders are at issue here: (1) sales information related to the accused products (October Order); (2) transactions supporting defendant's affirmative defense pursuant to ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498) (November Order); and (3) schematics, and technical and functional specifications documents (November Order). As to the first category, plaintiff contends in part) | |||||||||||||||||||
63 | Holmberg v. United States | 124 Fed.Cl. 610, 612 | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 14-284C) | 1/12/2016 | PATENTS - Design. Term ”scope,” as used in patent for device to be mounted on firearm meant ”viewing instrument,” rather than ”telescope.” | ORDER AND OPINION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DAMICH, Senior Judge This case arises out of Plaintiff Larry Holmberg's allegation that Defendant, the United States, has violated ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498) through the use or manufacture of the invention described in United States Patent Nos. 6,988,332 (''the 331 patent'') and 7,100,321 (''the 321) | |||||||||||||||||||
64 | 3rd Eye Surveillance, LLC v. United States | 124 Fed.Cl. 438, 439+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 15-501C) | 12/17/2015 | PATENTS - Pleading. Patent infringement complaint against government required more definite statement to provide sufficient notice of infringing activities. | statement; RCFC 8(a)(2), RCFC 12(e)OPINION AND ORDER LETTOW, Judge.Pending before the court in this patent infringement case brought pursuant to ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) are motions by the defendant (''United States'' or the ''government'') to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for a) | |||||||||||||||||||
65 | Clark v. U.S. | 632 Fed.Appx. 1027, 1028+ | Fed.Cir. | (NO. 2015-5002) | 11/25/2015 | GOVERNMENT - United States. Claimant failed to state claim against federal government for infringing copyright in claimant's program for modifying student behavior. | than federal government, in claimant's action for infringement of copyright and patent rights in claimant's program for modifying student behavior. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1491(a) ) 1498(a)) [2]170B Federal Courts 170BXIX Exclusive, Concurrent, and Conflicting Jurisdiction as Between Federal Courts 170BXIX(C) Pendency and Scope of Prior Proceedings; First-Filed) | |||||||||||||||||||
66 | Advanced Aerospace Technologies, Inc. v. United States | 124 Fed.Cl. 282, 288+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 12-85 C) | 11/24/2015 | PATENTS - Transportation. Term, ”outboard portion,” in a patent related to a launch and recovery system for unmanned aerial vehicles was indefinite. | of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same [seeking] recovery of reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture.'' ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) The December 11, 2013 Third Amended Complaint properly invoked the court's jurisdiction, pursuant to ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) ), authorizing the) | |||||||||||||||||||
67 | Crye Precision LLC v. Duro Textiles, LLC | 2015 WL 6509143, *3 | S.D.N.Y. | (NO. 15CV1681 DLC) | 10/28/2015 | This action arises from a continuing dispute between the licensor and owner of a patented camouflage pattern, plaintiffs Crye Precision LLC (“Crye Precision”) and Lineweight LLC... | facts alleged in Duro's counterclaims and the terms of the Covenant, Duro's declaratory judgment counterclaims are now moot. The Covenant reads as follows:Consistent with ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498) , Crye Precision LLC and Lineweight LLC (collectively, ''Crye'') hereby covenant not to sue Duro Textiles, LLC (''Duro'') or its customers for infringement) | |||||||||||||||||||
68 | Kammeyer v. United States Army Corps of Engineers | 2015 WL 12765463, *3+ | C.D.Cal. | (NO. EDCV15869JGBKKX) | 10/9/2015 | Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Claims against Federal Defendants. (“Motion,” Doc. No. 40.) A hearing was held on the Motion on September 28, 2015. Counsel for... | any other statute that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.''5 U.S.C. § 702(2) Federal Defendants argue ) 28 U.S.C. Section 1498(b)) is such a statute that would preclude relief under the APA. ) Section 1498(b)) grants consent for the United States to) | |||||||||||||||||||
69 | Sheridan v. U.S. | 629 Fed.Appx. 948, 949+ | Fed.Cir. | (NO. 2015-5073) | 10/8/2015 | GOVERNMENT - United States. Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over infringement claims under statute governing assistance to other countries for increasing trade. | absence of any claim that the private infringers had authorization from or otherwise were acting for the federal government. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1491(a)(1) ) 1498) 291 Patents 291X Patents Enumerated 291 2091 k. In general; utility.US Patent 7,415,982. Cited.Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in) | |||||||||||||||||||
70 | Astornet Technologies Inc. v. BAE Systems, Inc. | 802 F.3d 1271, 1271+ | 116 U.S.P.Q.2d 1523, 1523+ | Fed.Cir.(Md.) | (NO. 2014-1854 , 2015-1006 , 2015-1007) | 9/17/2015 | 59. ---- Direct, infringement, patents | GOVERNMENT - United States. Patent licensee's exclusive remedy for alleged infringement by government contractors was suit against United States in Court of Federal Claims. | indirect infringement was use of patented invention by TSA, and although licensee referenced additional theory of direct infringement, that theory was not asserted in complaint. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498) [3]393 United States 393II Liabilities of and Claims Against United States 393II(A) In General 393 403 Particular Liabilities and Claims) | |||||||||||||||||
71 | L-3 Communications Corporation v. Jaxon Engineering & Maintenance, Inc. | 125 F.Supp.3d 1155, 1176 | 2015 IER Cases 190,482, 190482 | D.Colo. | (NO. 10-CV-02868-MSK-KMT) | 9/1/2015 | PATENTS - Estoppel. Employer, a government contractor, lost its exclusive right to practice its patent when government exercised its right to appropriate title to patent. | 3 lost its exclusive right to practice the Patent when the Government exercised its right to appropriate title the Patent; and (ii) that pursuant to ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) , L-3 must bring suit against the U.S. Government, not the Defendants, for infringement of the Patent.FN12. L-3 has) | ||||||||||||||||||
72 | Athey v. United States | 123 Fed.Cl. 42, 61+ | 2015 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 282,178, 282178+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 06-872C , 99-2051C) | 8/31/2015 | LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT - Public Employment. Former federal civilian employees were not entitled to prejudgment interest on claims for miscalculation of lump-sum payments for annual... | No. 194, Athey (quoting Gaylord v. United States, 678 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed.Cir.2012)Gaylord awarded interest in a copyright infringement action based on ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b)) , which waives the United States' sovereign immunity for copyright infringement including ''reasonable and entire compensation as damages for such infringement.''678) | ||||||||||||||||||
73 | Crye Precision LLC v. Bennettsville Printing | 124 F.Supp.3d 231, 231+ | E.D.N.Y. | (NO. 15-CV-00221 FB RER) | 8/27/2015 | 62. ---- License, infringement, patents 65. ---- Miscellaneous cases, infringement, patents 100. Sovereign immunity, practice and procedure | PATENTS - Design. Licensor's breach of contract claim against licensee of camouflage pattern was not precluded by patent infringement statute. | unlicensed or unlawful use or manufacture of a patented invention on behalf of the government, and (2) it provides an affirmative defense for government contractors. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) [2]393 United States 393II Liabilities of and Claims Against United States 393II(A) In General 393 403 Particular Liabilities and) | ||||||||||||||||||
74 | Kammeyer v. Oneida Total Integrated Enterprises | 2015 WL 5031959, *4+ | C.D.Cal. | (NO. EDCV15869JGBKKX) | 8/24/2015 | On June 15, 2015, the Court granted a Temporary Restraining Order which enjoined Defendant United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) from altering or destroying the... | any other statute that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.''5 U.S.C. § 702(2) USACE argues that ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b)) forbids the relief Plaintiffs seek. ) Section 1498(b)) is another Congressional waiver of sovereign immunity. The statute grants consent for the) | |||||||||||||||||||
75 | Cormack v. United States | 122 Fed.Cl. 691, 692+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 13-232C) | 8/18/2015 | 58. Infringement, patents--Generally 65. ---- Miscellaneous cases, infringement, patents 104. Burden of proof, practice and procedure | PATENTS - Processes. Mail sorting service used by Postal Service did not literally infringe on patent's method or system for sorting mailpieces in single pass. | use or manufacture of an invention by or for United States is analogous to a taking of property under the Fifth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5 ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) [2]291 Patents 291VI Patent Rights and Duties 291VI(F) Government Rights and Duties as to Inventions 291 1532 Inventions by) | ||||||||||||||||||
76 | Advanced Aerospace Technologies, Inc. v. United States | 122 Fed.Cl. 445, 453+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 12-85 C) | 7/29/2015 | PATENTS - Science and Technology. Term ”sensor” in patent related to launch and recovery system for unmanned aerial aircraft was not limited to cover corresponding structure. | of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same, [seeking] recovery of reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture.'' ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) The December 11, 2013 Third Amended Complaint properly invokes the court's jurisdiction, pursuant to ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) ), authorizing the) | |||||||||||||||||||
77 | Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States | 122 Fed.Cl. 245, 248+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 14-513C) | 7/20/2015 | PATENTS - Science and Technology. Patent related to motion-tracking relative to moving platform was invalid for failure to claim eligible subject matter. | Thales Defense & Security, Inc. TVI designs and develops helmet-mounted display and motion-tracking technology for defense and aerospace applications. TVI brings this action under ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498) alleging the unlicensed and unlawful use by the United States of TVI's U.S. Patent No. 6,474,159 (''the '159 patent'') The technology involved) | |||||||||||||||||||
78 | FastShip LLC v. United States | 122 Fed.Cl. 71, 71+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 12-484C) | 6/26/2015 | 43. Use or manufacture, patents | PATENTS - Transportation. Navy's allegedly infringing ship was not manufactured by or for government before expiration of patents-in-suit. | to any United States patent as of the instant the invention is first used or manufactured by or for the government. U.S. Const. Amend. 5 ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) [2]291 Patents 291VII Patent Infringement 291VII(A) In General 291 1552 k. Nature and elements of injury.393 United States) | ||||||||||||||||||
79 | Crye Precision LLC v. Duro Textiles, LLC | 112 F.Supp.3d 69, 69+ | S.D.N.Y. | (NO. 15CV1681 DLC) | 6/16/2015 | 49. ---- Miscellaneous cases, authorization or consent, patents 65. ---- Miscellaneous cases, infringement, patents | PATENTS - Assignments and Licensing. Patent licensor's breach of contract claim against former licensee was not barred by statute waiving government's sovereign immunity. | "patented pattern through color palette, pattern or arrangement, or placement of any elements incorporated in pattern, rather than injunctive relief based on infringement of patent. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) [2]291 Patents 291VI Patent Rights and Duties 291VI(D) Licenses and Royalties 291 1495 Rights, Remedies, and Liabilities of Licensees)" | ||||||||||||||||||
80 | Clark v. United States | 2015 WL 3649675, *2+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 13-490C) | 6/12/2015 | Plaintiff James Hedman Clark, the author of a work entitled ''High School Shut Down Room Program,'' has brought this lawsuit pro se alleging that the United States infringed his... | of Congress, but also a few government contractors and telecommunications service providers.Compl. ¶¶ 12–19. Mister Clark asserts four counts of copyright infringement under ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b)) Compl. ¶¶ 90–148; one count of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) violations, 17 U.S.C. § 1701 et. seq., Compl. ¶¶) | |||||||||||||||||||
81 | AAR Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States | 121 Fed.Cl. 553, 557+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 13-575C) | 6/4/2015 | PATENTS - Transportation. Term ”hollow” in patent for collapsible containerized shelter meant ”having a hole, cavity, or empty space within sufficient to serve as shelter.” | of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same [seeking] recovery of reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture.'' ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) The August 13, 2013 Complaint properly invokes the court's jurisdiction, under ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) ), authorizing the United States Court) | |||||||||||||||||||
82 | Clark v. United States | 2015 WL 3492093, *1 | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 11-10C) | 5/29/2015 | On May 1, 2015, the Clerk's office received a submission from Mr. Clark which it did not file because the document was neither properly bound per Rule 5.5(c)(5) of the Rules of the... | to the absence of an issued patent.See Clark v. United States, No. 11–10C, 2014 WL 3728172, at *6 (Fed.Cl. July 28, 2014) (citing ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) The motion for relief is, accordingly, denied under RCFC 62.1(a)(2)IT IS SO ORDERED.110 0 #2 2059) | |||||||||||||||||||
83 | Bondyopadhyay v. United States | 2015 WL 1311726, *2+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 14-147C) | 3/20/2015 | This patent infringement case comes before the Court on Defendant's partial motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief... | contracts. Mot. to Dismiss, Chiang Decl., Ex. 2.Plaintiff alleges that''[t]his Claim has three parts. The first or the main part arises out of ) Title 28 U.S.Code, Section 1498(a)) The second part arises out of Title 35 U.S.Code Section 284 under special circumstances described below. The third part covers) | |||||||||||||||||||
84 | Norton v. United States | 2015 WL 1086548, *6+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 14-633C) | 3/9/2015 | Pro se plaintiff, Michael Anthony Norton, filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims, ''set[ting] forth a demand for judgment against the United States in the... | F 3d 1339, 1343 (Fed.Cir.)reh'g and reh'g en banc denied (Fed.Cir. 2002).cert. denied,538 U.S. 906 (2003)Copyright Infringement Claims Section (b) of ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498) provides in part,whenever the copyright in any work protected under the copyright laws of the United States shall be infringed by) | |||||||||||||||||||
85 | Sheridan v. United States | 120 Fed.Cl. 127, 130+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 14-696C) | 2/20/2015 | GOVERNMENT - Jurisdiction. Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction over patentee's claims against government, seeking compensation for infringement by private parties. | and owner did not allege any facts to suggest that government authorized or consented to infringement by private parties. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1491(a)(1) ) 1498(a)) [9]393 United States 393II Liabilities of and Claims Against United States 393II(A) In General 393 403 Particular Liabilities and Claims 393 406) | |||||||||||||||||||
86 | Micro/sys, Inc. v. DRS Technologies, Inc. | 2015 WL 12748630, *2+ | C.D.Cal. | (NO. CV143441DMGAJWX) | 2/13/2015 | On July 23, 2014, plaintiff Micro/sys, Inc. (“Micro/sys”) filed its First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against defendants the United States Postal Service (“USPS”); DRS Sustainment... | and patent claims against the government must be brought before the Court of Federal Claims, which has exclusive jurisdiction over such claims. Id.see also ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b)) ''the exclusive action which may be brought for such [copyright] infringement shall be an action by the copyright owner against the) | |||||||||||||||||||
87 | Gaylord v. U.S. | 777 F.3d 1363, 1366+ | 2015 Copr.L.Dec. P 30,721, 30721+ 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1606, 1606+ | Fed.Cir. | (NO. 2014-5020) | 2/4/2015 | COPYRIGHTS - Damages. Per-unit royalty, rather than one-time lump-sum payment, would have been outcome of hypothetical negotiation. | In Gaylord II, we vacated the Court of Federal Claims' decision awarding Mr. Gaylord $5,000 as the ''reasonable and entire compensation'' he was due under ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b)) 678 F.3d at 1345 We remanded to determine the fair market value of a license for Mr. Gaylord's work based) | ||||||||||||||||||
88 | Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc. | 2015 WL 428345, *1+ | N.D.Cal. | (NO. 13-CV-04910-JD) | 1/30/2015 | Plaintiff Open Text has moved for summary judgment on two affirmative defenses asserted by defendants Box and Carahsoft (hereafter referred to collectively as ''Box,'' except where... | two affirmative defenses asserted by defendants Box and Carahsoft (hereafter referred to collectively as ''Box,'' except where otherwise stated): (1) a government contractor defense under ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) ; and (2) failure to state a claim. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the motion in part and denies) | |||||||||||||||||||
89 | Liberty Ammunition, Inc. v. United States | 119 Fed.Cl. 368, 368+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 11-84C) | 12/19/2014 | 111. ---- Reasonable royalty rate, damages, practice and procedure 113. ---- Delay compensation, damages, practice and procedure | PATENTS - Science and Technology. Government literally infringed claims of patent for firearms projectile. | authorized to take a non-exclusive and compulsory license to any United States patent based on the theory of eminent domain. U.S. Const. Amend. 5 ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498) [2]291 Patents 291VI Patent Rights and Duties 291VI(F) Government Rights and Duties as to Inventions 291 1532 Inventions by Government) | ||||||||||||||||||
90 | Micro/sys, Inc. v. DRS Technologies, Inc. | 2014 WL 12591918, *2+ | C.D.Cal. | (NO. CV 14-3441-DMG (CWX)) | 11/21/2014 | On August 13, 2014, defendant Commtech Inc. (“Commtech”) filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction. [Doc. # 62.] On September 23, 2014, the... | Matter Jurisdiction over Micro/sys's Copyright Claim Commtech seeks dismissal of Micro/sys's copyright claim (Count 1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b)) (Mot. at 17–18). ) Section 1498(b)) states in pertinent part:[W]henever the copyright in any work protected under the copyright) | |||||||||||||||||||
91 | Cormack v. United States | 119 Fed.Cl. 63, 65+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 13-232C) | 11/4/2014 | PATENTS - Science and Technology. Term ”command” in patent disclosing a method and system for sorting mail meant an instruction. | and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,693 (''the ′693 patent''), entitled ''Method and System for Sorting Incoming Mail,'' and is therefore liable for damages under ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) Compl. at 2; Pl.'s Opening Claim Construction Br. (''Pl.'s Br.'') at i., ECF No. 66.1 This opinion addresses claim construction) | |||||||||||||||||||
92 | IRIS Corp. v. Japan Airlines Corp. | 769 F.3d 1359, 1360+ | 112 U.S.P.Q.2d 1689, 1689+ | Fed.Cir.(N.Y.) | (NO. 2010-1051) | 10/21/2014 | 6. Exclusive nature of section | PATENTS - Computers and Electronics. Patentee's exclusive remedy for any infringement was an action against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims. | sufficiency of waiver or consent.(Formerly 393k97 The government's authorization or consent, for purposes of liability for patent infringement, may be either express or implied. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) [3]393 United States 393II Liabilities of and Claims Against United States 393II(A) In General 393 403 Particular Liabilities and) | |||||||||||||||||
93 | SynQor, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. | 2014 WL 12641603, *7+ | E.D.Tex. | (NO. 2:14-CV-286-MHS-CMC) | 9/29/2014 | The above-referenced case was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for pre-trial purposes in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. Before the Court is SynQor,... | Appeals considered whether importing a product using a patented process under § 271(g) rendered the government subject to a suit for patent infringement under ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) The court noted the purpose in adopting § 271(g) was to ''harmonize United States law with that of the rest) | |||||||||||||||||||
94 | CANVS Corporation v. United States | 118 Fed.Cl. 587, 589 | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 10-540C) | 9/26/2014 | PATENTS - Reexamination. Requested stay pending inter partes review by Patent and Trademark Office Patent and Trial Appeal Board (PTAB) was premature and unduly prejudicial. | granting stay pending inter partes review).I. Statement of Facts In August 2010, plaintiff CANVS Corporation (CANVS) filed suit seeking reasonable and entire compensation under ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)) for defendant's alleged infringement of plaintiff's U.S. Patent No. 6,911,652 filed June 28, 2005 (the patent), disclosing a low light imaging) | |||||||||||||||||||
95 | L-3 Communications Corporation v. Jaxon Engineering & Maintenance, Inc. | 69 F.Supp.3d 1136, 1139+ | D.Colo. | (NO. 10-CV-02868-MSK-KMT) | 9/22/2014 | PATENTS - Computers and Electronics. Competitor founded by former employees of assignee of patents was estopped from asserting invalidity as defense to assignee's infringement... | affirmative counterclaim for declaratory relief sounding in statutory immunity from a patent infringement claim, while simultaneously asserting an affirmative defense on precisely the same grounds. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) [15]118A Declaratory Judgment 118AI Nature and Grounds in General 118AI(C) Other Remedies 118A 41 k. Existence and effect in) | |||||||||||||||||||
96 | Demodulation, Inc. v. United States | 118 Fed.Cl. 69, 72+ | 112 U.S.P.Q.2d 1677, 1677+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 11-236C) | 8/29/2014 | 52. Government contracts, patents--Generally 65. ---- Miscellaneous cases, infringement, patents | PATENTS - Science and Technology. Contractor was mere licensee, and not equitable owner of patent related to metal filament, precluding its ability to sue government for... | amorphous metal filament, since claimed invention passed into public domain, and any of contractor's rights flowing from those patents ceased, upon termination of patents' terms. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) [14]393 United States 393II Liabilities of and Claims Against United States 393II(H) Court of Federal Claims (Formerly Claims Court) | |||||||||||||||||
97 | Ensign-Bickford Aerospace & Defense Company v. United States | 118 Fed.Cl. 363, 365+ | 112 U.S.P.Q.2d 1988, 1988+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 13-57C) | 8/13/2014 | 43. Use or manufacture, patents 65. ---- Miscellaneous cases, infringement, patents 95. Parties, practice and procedure | GOVERNMENT - United States. patentee's infringement counterclaims against government subcontractor were not pending when patentee brought later action against federal government.‐ | or manufactured infringing products with government's authorization or consent, and subcontractor here allegedly supplied infringing products to government while acting as subcontractor on government contract. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) [5]170B Federal Courts 170BXIX Exclusive, Concurrent, and Conflicting Jurisdiction as Between Federal Courts 170BXIX(C) Pendency and Scope of Prior) | |||||||||||||||||
98 | Lamson v. United States | 117 Fed.Cl. 755, 756+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 11-377C) | 7/31/2014 | 43. Use or manufacture, patents 100. Sovereign immunity, practice and procedure 102a. Defenses available, practice and procedure | PATENTS - Medical Devices and Procedures. Government was protected by medical immunity defense from patent infringement claim.‐ | 393 406(2) k. Liability of government.(Formerly 393k97 Medical immunity defense is available to the United States in actions for infringement of a patent. ) 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498(a)) 35 U.S.C.A. § 287(c)[2]393 United States 393II Liabilities of and Claims Against United States 393II(A) In General) | ||||||||||||||||||
99 | Clark v. United States | 2014 WL 3728172, *4+ | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 11-10C) | 7/28/2014 | Pending before the Court is defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff, James Hedman Clark,... | relief can be granted.Our court does not have jurisdiction over claims against defendants other than the United States.See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1491(a) ) 1498(a)) United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (holding that jurisdiction of our court's predecessor was limited to ''money judgments in suits brought) | |||||||||||||||||||
100 | Spa Syspatronic AG v. United States | 117 Fed.Cl. 375, 378 | Fed.Cl. | (NO. 10-769C) | 7/18/2014 | PATENTS - Computers and Electronics. Lack of algorithm for means-plus-function limitations rendered two patent claims invalid as definite.‐ | third-party defendant.Patents; Means-plus-function limitations; 35 U.S.C. § 112; Indefiniteness.OPINION BRUGGINK JUDGE This is a patent infringement action brought pursuant to ) 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) (2012) ) against the United States for unlicensed use of plaintiff's patent. A third party, Gemalto, Inc., responded to our rule 14) |