Samy Gharb v. United States
112 Fed. Cl. 94
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- Samy Gharb, pro se, is the owner of expired U.S. Patent No. 6,552,654 for a security system integrating PLCs with GSM mobile phones.
- Gharb sued multiple defendants (including the United States) alleging Mitsubishi Electric manufactured PLCs that infringed the patent and that government procurement by Mitsubishi makes the United States liable under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a).
- Gharb relies on a 2005 meeting and licensing negotiations with Mitsubishi as evidence of Mitsubishi’s knowledge and on a list of defense contracts awarded to Mitsubishi (2000–2011).
- The Government moved to dismiss under RCFC 41(b), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6).
- The court found § 1498 jurisdiction over a government-use infringement claim but dismissed claims against private parties as beyond the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint under RCFC 12(b)(6) for failure to plead sufficient factual allegations.
- The court also concluded Federal Circuit precedent forecloses Gharb’s theory that sale of PLCs merely capable of GSM communication alone establishes infringement of the ’654 patent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1498 | Gharb seeks money damages under § 1498 because Mitsubishi, a government contractor, sold infringing PLCs to the U.S. | The Government disputed sufficiency of jurisdictional facts and urged dismissal of claims against non‑federal defendants. | Court: § 1498 provides jurisdiction over a claim against the United States, but claims against private parties must be dismissed. |
| Sufficiency of factual allegations (RCFC 12(b)(6)) | Gharb alleges Mitsubishi stole his invention and points to licensing talks and contract awards as evidentiary basis. | Government contends allegations are conclusory and fail Twombly/Iqbal plausibility and factual specificity requirements. | Court: Complaint is conclusory and lacks factual allegations that government purchased or used infringing PLCs; dismissed under 12(b)(6). |
| Effect of prior Federal Circuit ruling on infringement theory | Gharb’s theory: any PLC that can communicate via GSM infringes the ’654 patent. | Government relies on Federal Circuit precedent that mere GSM capability does not satisfy all claim limitations. | Court: Federal Circuit’s prior decision (Unitronics) forecloses Gharb’s theory; PLCs communicating over GSM alone do not infringe. |
| Proper defendants in Court of Federal Claims | Gharb named multiple private and foreign defendants along with the United States. | Government argued the Claims Court’s remedy is money against the United States only. | Court: Dismissed claims against private parties, individuals, and foreign nation as beyond the court’s jurisdiction; only the United States is proper defendant for § 1498 claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal‑sufficiency standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility requirement for complaints)
- Unitronics (1989) (R"G) Ltd. v. Gharb, [citation="318 F. App'x 902"] (Fed. Cir.) (PLC GSM capability alone does not infringe the ’654 patent)
- Warner‑Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17 (requirement that accused device meet each claim limitation)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (Claims Court jurisdiction limited to money judgments against the United States)