Fastship, LLC v. United States
892 F.3d 1298
Fed. Cir.2018Background
- FastShip sued the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1498, alleging the Navy’s Freedom‑class Littoral Combat Ships (LCS‑1 and LCS‑3) infringed claims of U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,080,032 and 5,231,946 (the Patents‑in‑Suit).
- The Patents‑in‑Suit claim a large semi‑planing monohull vessel with waterjet inlets located in a high‑pressure stern area that "increases efficiency of the hull." Claim 1 of the ’032 patent is representative.
- LCS‑1 was completed and in Navy use before the patents expired (May 18, 2010); LCS‑3 was still under construction at that time and had major components (bow/hull modules and waterjets) completed only after expiration.
- The Court of Federal Claims granted the Government summary judgment that LCS‑3 was not “manufactured” for § 1498 purposes before expiration, held after trial that LCS‑1 infringed the Asserted Claims, and awarded $6,449,585.82 in damages.
- On appeal the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment for non‑infringement as to LCS‑3, affirmed infringement as to LCS‑1 (rejecting the Government’s claim‑construction modification argument), but corrected a computational error and increased the damages award to $7,117,271.82 plus interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LCS‑3 was "manufactured" by/for the U.S. before patents expired under § 1498 | LCS‑3 was substantially completed/assembled and factual disputes preclude summary judgment; Navy delayed installation to avoid infringement | LCS‑3 lacked required claim elements (waterjets, completed hull/bow) by expiration and thus was not "manufactured" | Affirmed: "manufactured" means made into a product suitable for use that includes each claim limitation; LCS‑3 was not manufactured by the expiration date |
| Whether LCS‑1 meets the "increases the efficiency of the hull" limitation | FastShip: LCS‑1’s power‑to‑speed performance demonstrates increased hull efficiency as construed | Government: Court improperly modified earlier claim construction and relied on improper extrinsic evidence (units conversion) to find infringement | Affirmed: Court did not alter construction; metric‑unit reading of patent figure was supported by inventor testimony and not rebutted; LCS‑1 infringes |
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims erred in damages calculation | FastShip: trial court miscalculated the royalty base; correct total yields higher award | Government: agrees correction is required (cross‑appeal on other issues) | Modified: court clearly erred in arithmetic; damages adjusted to $7,117,271.82 plus interest |
Key Cases Cited
- BedRoc Ltd. v. United States, 541 U.S. 176 (discusses statutory interpretation principles for government‑use patent provisions)
- Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 672 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir.) (interpreting "use" in § 1498 and requiring each claim limitation be present)
- Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518 (Supreme Court) (held parts exported in incomplete form did not constitute making under § 271(a); discussed but held inapplicable to § 1498)
- Paper Converting Machine Co. v. Magna‑Graphics Corp., 745 F.2d 11 (Fed. Cir.) (addressed when testing/partial assembly can constitute infringement under § 271(a); distinguished)
- Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429 (Supreme Court) (construed historical meaning of "manufacture")
- Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 29 Fed. Cl. 197 (Fed. Cl.) (Court of Federal Claims decision analyzing "manufactured" in § 1498; considered but not controlling)