Fastship, LLC v. United States
131 Fed. Cl. 592
Fed. Cl.2017Background
- FastShip, LLC owns U.S. Patents Nos. 5,080,032 and 5,231,946, claiming a large semi-planing monohull ship design with waterjet propulsion capable of high transoceanic speeds; both patents expired May 18, 2010.
- The Navy developed the Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ship (LCS‑1), a double‑chine semi‑planing monohull propelled by waterjets and CODAG power, launched Sept. 23, 2006.
- FastShip sued under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) alleging LCS‑1 infringes Claims 1 and 19 of the ’032 patent and Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 of the ’946 patent and sought $44M; the government denied infringement and asserted invalidity (obviousness, lack of enablement).
- Extensive model‑tank and full‑scale testing and expert testimony addressed: stern “hook” geometry, pressure distributions under the stern, waterjet inlet placement and effects, trim/heave behavior, and power‑vs‑speed performance.
- The court tried the case, construed key claim terms, found LCS‑3 excluded earlier (leaving only LCS‑1), and resolved infringement, validity, and damages (reasonable royalty + delay interest).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Literal infringement of representative Claim 1 | LCS‑1 embodies every claim limitation: hooked stern produces high pressure and hydrodynamic lift at threshold speed; waterjet inlets lie within that high‑pressure area; waterjet acceleration adds lift and reduces drag. | LCS‑1 does not meet key limitations: stern lift occurs only at speeds LCS‑1 doesn’t reliably reach; inlets not in a high‑pressure area; waterjets ‘‘suck down’’ rather than add lift. | Court found by preponderance that LCS‑1 literally infringes the asserted claims. |
| Existence/location of high pressure and hydrodynamic lifting at stern; role of interceptors/inlets | Hooked stern (part of hull) creates high pressure under stern at ~35–40 knots; interceptors augment but are not required; inlets are within that high‑pressure area. | Any lift is from appendages (interceptors) or not present; model artifacts and CFD show low pressure under stern. | Court credited tank/full‑scale test data and experts for plaintiff; found stern hook and inlets produce high pressure and hydrodynamic lift; interceptors amplify lift but are not required; inlets lie within high‑pressure area. |
| Whether waterjets produce additional lift and increase hull efficiency | Waterjets on LCS‑1 (Kamewa) were designed and tested to accelerate flow and produce additional upward force and reduce required power vs. a conventional displacement hull. | Expert CFD/analysis showed waterjets cause suction and do not add lift; LCS‑1 is not more efficient than conventional displacement hulls. | Court rejected government’s CFD analysis as unreliable at full scale; concluded waterjets add lift and (in relevant operating regimes) increase efficiency. |
| Obviousness of the patents | Patents claim nonobvious combination: large semi‑planing monohull combined with gas turbines and waterjets to exploit high pressure at stern; secondary considerations (initial skepticism, later praise, commercial interest) support nonobviousness. | Prior art (papers, feasibility studies) would have motivated a skilled artisan to combine semi‑planing hulls and waterjet propulsion; Blount study shows motivation to combine. | Court held government failed to prove obviousness by clear and convincing evidence; considered Blount’s work not typical of a person of ordinary skill and gave weight to secondary considerations. |
| Enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112 | Specification (though stating one mode) sufficiently teaches locating inlets in stern high‑pressure area; skilled artisans could practice claims without undue experimentation. | Spec lacks guidance for inlet placement and other practical details; thus claims are not enabled. | Court held patents enabled; the specification and state of the art permitted practice without undue experimentation. |
| Reasonable royalty / date of hypothetical negotiation | (FastShip) License date = LCS‑1 launch (Sept. 23, 2006); reasonable royalty informed by FastShip’s prior licenses (3% suggested). | (Government) Negotiation date earlier (Dec. 15, 2004) when Navy committed to build; lower damages. | Court set negotiation date as Sept. 23, 2006 (launch); adopted a 3% royalty applied to an apportioned royalty base ($214,986,194) yielding $6,449,585.82; awarded interest at 10‑yr Treasury rate (4.58%) compounded semi‑annually until payment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Motorola, Inc. v. United States, 729 F.2d 765 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (section 1498 waiver and treatment of government use as taking)
- Decca Ltd. v. United States, 640 F.2d 1156 (Ct. Cl. 1980) (scope of government liability under § 1498 and limits on contributory claims)
- Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (framework for obviousness analysis)
- KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (obviousness: motivation to combine and reliance on common sense; consideration of secondary indicia)
- Rite‑Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (hypothetical negotiation framework for reasonable royalty)
- LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (smallest‑salable patent‑practicing unit and apportionment principles)
- In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (factors for enablement and undue experimentation)
- General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. 648 (1983) (purpose of delay interest to make patent owner whole)