Fastship, LLC v. United States
114 Fed. Cl. 499
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- Fastship LLC sues the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) for alleged infringement of the ’032 and ’946 patents involving Navy Littoral Combat Ships (LCS 1, LCS 3).
- The court conducts claim construction to determine the meaning and scope of disputed terms central to infringement analysis.
- The patents cover a semi-planing hull with waterjet propulsion, claiming dual sources of hydrodynamic lift: hull shape and waterjet-accelerated flow.
- Claims at issue include independent product and dependent method claims across both patents; both patents expired May 18, 2010.
- The court adopts one agreed construction and resolves seven groups of disputed terms through intrinsic and limited extrinsic evidence, applying the standard Markman framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the proper construction of "a high pressure area" | Plain/ordinary meaning; not limited to shape or magnitude | Adds limitations—specific shape, magnitude, and hydrodynamic source | "High pressure area" means hydrodynamically generated pressure producing an upward force vector. |
| What does "to increase the pressure" mean in the claims | Plain and ordinary meaning; increase in pressure | Pressure increase must be due to waterjet action | Means to generate greater aqueous pressure; not limited to hull alone or pump source. |
| Are there two hydrodynamic lift components and can they be separated | There are two components (hull-induced and jet-induced) that may appear separate | Prosecution history suggests dual components but not functionally independent | Dual components exist but cannot be separated in functional effect. |
| What is meant by "further lifting" and "additional" | Plain and ordinary meaning; additive lift | Distinguish from hull lift and tie to waterjets | Mean greater upward force vector than from a single lift source. |
| What is the meaning of "acceleration of water into" and related phrasing | Plain meaning; acceleration is velocity increase into the inlet | Acceleration limited to pumps as source | Increase in water flow speed into the inlets; not limited to pumps as sole source. |
Key Cases Cited
- O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (claims construction uses intrinsic evidence first)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim construction relies on ordinary meaning but may consult the specification)
- Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (intrinsic evidence governs interpretation; avoid importing limitations)
- Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., 357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (patentee statements during prosecution can inform claim scope)
- Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc., 402 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (prosecution history to exclude interpretations during patenting)