Amos v. United States, 16-1094

Background

Plaintiff Carl Raymond Amos (pro se) sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims alleging copyright infringement (and related DMCA, Lanham Act, RICO claims) tied to design work for the National Museum of African American History and Culture.
Contract (2009) between the Smithsonian and contractor Freelon Group, Inc. contained an express "No Infringement" clause prohibiting contractor IP infringement and an indemnification clause in favor of the Government; it did not include an authorization-and-consent clause for copyright infringement.
Amos alleges he provided notice of his copyrights (including specific registrations for "Jwahmose" designs) as early as 2009 and that Freelon (and transitively the Government) used his designs without authorization.
Defendant moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and (6), arguing lack of waiver of sovereign immunity, statute of limitations bar, lack of jurisdiction over DMCA/Lanham/RICO claims, and failure to state a claim.
The court dismissed the case: (1) no waiver of sovereign immunity because plaintiff failed to show the contractor acted with the Government's authorization or consent; (2) alternatively, claims barred by the 3‑year limitation in 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b); (3) court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over DMCA, Lanham, and RICO claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sovereign immunity / §1498 authorization-or-consent	Amos contends Smithsonian notice and higher‑level acquiescence amounted to implied authorization or consent for contractor infringement.	Govt argues no express authorization in contract and no extrinsic evidence of implied authorization; indemnity clause shows contractor liability, not Government consent.	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — plaintiff failed to show authorization or consent needed to waive sovereign immunity.
Statute of limitations under §1498(b)	Amos argues late copyright registration (2015) preserves his claims.	Govt argues accrual began when Amos had notice (as early as 2009); §1498(b) bars claims more than 3 years before filing.	Dismissed alternatively as time‑barred; claims accrued by 2009 and suit filed in 2016.
Jurisdiction over DMCA, Lanham Act, and RICO claims	Amos initially pleaded these claims but later said he sought only copyright relief; amended complaint still alleges RICO.	Govt argues Court of Federal Claims lacks subject‑matter jurisdiction over DMCA, Lanham, and RICO causes of action.	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over DMCA, Lanham, and RICO claims.
Failure to state a claim on the merits (copyright copying/ownership)	Amos alleges ownership of valid copyrights and copying by contractor/Govt.	Govt argued plaintiff failed to plead facts establishing authorization or timely claim; moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).	Court did not reach merits — resolved on jurisdictional and statute‑of‑limitations grounds.

Key Cases Cited

Insurance Company of the West v. United States, 243 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (waiver of sovereign immunity required for suit against the government)
United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941) (failure to obtain waiver of sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional bar)
Boyle v. United States, 200 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (§1498 waiver extends to contractors only when acting for the government with its authorization or consent)
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (elements of copyright infringement: valid copyright and copying of original elements)
Auerbach v. Sverdrup Corp., 829 F.2d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (evidence of implied authorization may include contracting officer instructions, specifications, or retroactive consent)
Roley v. New World Pictures, Ltd., 19 F.3d 479 (9th Cir. 1994) (copyright claim accrues when plaintiff knows or is chargeable with knowledge of the violation)
Blueport Co., LLC v. United States, 533 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over DMCA claims)