Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionmotionpatentmotion to dismiss
contractplaintiffdefendantjurisdictionlitigationmotionsummary judgmentpatent

Related Cases

Plant Genetic Systems, N.V. v. DeKalb Genetics Corp., 315 F.3d 1335, 65 U.S.P.Q.2d 1452
View Case »
Forman v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 1434477
View Case »
Corley v. United States, 11 F.4th 79
View Case »
Exxon Chemical Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1994 WL 486743, 30 U.S.P.Q.2d 1813
View Case »
Earle v. Sawyer, 4 Mason 1, 8 F.Cas. 254, No. 4247, 1 Robb.Pat.Cas. 490, Merw.Pat.Inv. 502
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Hughes Aircraft Co. v. U. S., 209 Ct.Cl. 446, 534 F.2d 889, 192 U.S.P.Q. 296

Facts

The Skynet II system, a product of cooperative defense efforts of the U.S. and the U.K., is primarily utilized by the British Ministry of Defence to provide reliable satellite communication between permanent and mobile British military installations on a segment of the earth (the U.K. segment) extending from the U.K. in the west to Singapore and western Australia in the east.

Issue

Rule

By its express terms, 28 U.S.C. s 1498(a) vests exclusive jurisdiction in this court over patent infringement claims against the Government arising upon either one or both of the following two grounds: (1) unlicensed use or manufacture of a patented invention by the U.S. directly; and/or (2) unlicensed use or manufacture of a patented invention for the U.S. and with its authorization or consent.

Analysis

Defendant contends that neither of these two grounds is present in the instant case, for the reasons, most simply stated, that (1) any use by the U.S. of plaintiff's patented invention was solely on behalf of and for the benefit of the U.K. Government; and (2) any authorization and consent by the U.S. Defense Department was given extracontractually and only after this litigation against the Government had already been commenced, exceeded that Department's authority, and was therefore of no legal effect. We disagree with both of these contentions.

Conclusion

The court held that it had jurisdiction over the patent infringement claim, denying the motion to dismiss and affirming that the U.S. government's use of the patented invention was authorized and for its benefit.

Accordingly, we hold that plaintiff's claim lies properly within the intended and settled parameters of this court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. s 1498(a), and that defendant's motion for partial summary judgment should therefore be denied.

Who won?

Hughes Aircraft prevailed in establishing that the U.S. government's use of its patented technology in the Skynet II program was authorized and constituted a use for the benefit of the United States.

You must be