ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff filed this declaratory judgment action on January 12, 1998, seeking a declaration by this Court that Defendant’s offshore drilling plans will infringe Plaintiffs patent. Now before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
I. FACTUAL SUMMARY
In 1987, Plaintiff, a professional engineer involved in the design, fabrication, and construction of offshore platforms, was granted a patent for a new method of offshore platform installation. Plaintiffs patented method uses a pre-installed piling foundation, allowing for potentially millions of dollars of savings in fabrication and installation costs and providing greater potential for salvage and re-use of the offshore platform.
Defendant is a corporation engaged in the exploration, development, production, and sale of crude oil and natural gas. Pursuant to leases awarded to Defendant by the United States Government, Defendant’s activities include offshore exploration projects in the “Garden Banks” area of the Outer Continental Shelf. These leases require Defendant to pay the Federal Government a 12.5% royalty *939 in exchange for allowing Defendant to drill these areas. Moreover, the leases expressly require Defendant to conform its activities to those regulations governing oil and gas exploration and those rules, and regulations promulgated by the United States Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service (“MMS”). Specifically, according to pertinent regulations, Defendant’s design, fabrication, and installation plans are subject to verification and approval by the MMS. Furthermore, according to the leases at issue, Defendant is to “conduct all operations on the leased area in accordance with approved exploration plans, and approved development and production plans as are required by regulations.”
In accordance with the relevant leases, Defendant submitted its initial Development and Production Plan and detailed verification plans concerning the design, fabrication, and installation of the offshore platform to the MMS. The plans were approved. On January 12, 1998, Plaintiff filed in this Court a declaratory judgment action against Defendant alleging that Defendant’s planned installation of the offshore platforms would infringe Plaintiff’s patent. Defendant’s move to dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a).
II. ANALYSIS
A. Section H9 8(a).
The sole issue before the Court is whether 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) requires Plaintiff to sue the Federal Government, rather than Defendant, for patent infringement. 1 Section 1498(a) provides 'in relevant part:
(a) Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same, the owner’s remedy shall be by action against the United States in the Claims Court for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture.
For the ’purposes of this section, the use or manufacture of an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States by a contractor, a subcontractor, or any person, firm, or corporation for the Government and with authorization or consent of the Government, shall be construed as use or manufacture for the United States.
28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) (emphasis added). Section 1498 operates to relieve a contractor of liability in those situations where the contractor uses or manufactures an infringing invention for the United States.
See, e.g.,Robishaw Engineering Inc. v. United States,
*940 B. Is Plaintiffs Patent Being Used FOR the Government?
Defendant argues that the Federal Government benefits from Defendant’s use of Plaintiffs patent beeause the leases, pursuant to which Defendant is drilling, provide for the payment of production royalties to the Government. Defendant further argues that, not only does the Government receive financial benefit from the leases, but also the Federal Government’s national interests are served through Defendant’s drilling activities. As proof of these national interests, Defendant points to Congressional statements made when adopting the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act:
the outer Continental Shelf is a vital national resource reserve, held by the Federal Government for the public, which should be made available for expeditious and orderly development ... in a manner consistent with the maintenance of competition and other national needs.
43 U.S.C. § 1332(3)(emphasis added). Apparently, Defendant’s argument essentially boils down to this: Because the Federal Government receives some benefit from the leases, and beeause Defendant allegedly used Plaintiffs patent pursuant to the leases, Defendant’s action were conducted for the Government. The Court finds Defendant’s assertion unpersuasive.
The primary purpose of § 1498(a) is to allow the United States Government to purchase goods and services for performance of Governmental functions without the threat that the work will not be completed beeause the supplier or contractor is enjoined for patent infringement.
See Windsurfing Intern., Inc. v. Ostermann,
Moreover, in determining whether the use of a patented invention is for the Government’s benefit, the Court must look at the purpose of the action.
See TVI Energy Corp. v. Blane,
The Court understands that the case authority interpreting § 1498(a) is sparse; moreover, the Court observes that any such existing authority is in utter disarray. The Court’s holding today is based in logic and a
*941
common sense reading of § 1498(a).
See Lykes Bros. S.S. Co. v. United States,
This Court concludes that Plaintiffs patent is not being used by Defendant
for
the Federal Government; therefore, the analysis ends here, and the Court need not address the myriad of arguments proffered by both parties concerning whether the Government authorized or consented to the use of the patent. The Court notes, however, that even though the Federal Government authorized the various plans submitted by Defendant, the Government did not authorize, either explicitly or implicitly, Defendant’s alleged infringement. Today’s holding is consistent with
Carrier Corp. v. United States,
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. The parties are ORDERED to bear their own taxable costs and expenses incurred herein to date. The parties are also ORDERED to file no further pleadings on these issues in this Court, including motions to reconsider or the like, unless justified by a compelling showing of new evidence not available at the time of the instant submissions. Instead, the parties are instructed to seek any further relief to which they feel themselves entitled in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit as may be appropriate, in due course.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Notes
. Defendant seeks dismissal either pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(1) (jurisdictional defects) or, alternatively, pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(l)(failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted). There is some disagreement among the Circuits regarding whether § 1498(a) is a jurisdictional statute,
see, e.g., Croll-Reynolds, Co. v. Perini-Leavell-Jones-Vinell,
. It is clear that the facts of this case do not implicate the "manufactured by” language found in the statute.
. A contractor making Government widgets pursuant to a contract which infringe a patent would be making widgets for the Government.
. Of course, the Federal Government is very concerned about the environmental implications of offshore drilling, but from the evidence presented, has little concern whether the lessor can accomplish the task in a way that saves the lessor money.