{"id":2067,"date":"2018-06-05T11:15:31","date_gmt":"2018-06-05T15:15:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2067"},"modified":"2018-06-21T13:01:34","modified_gmt":"2018-06-21T17:01:34","slug":"no-littoral-infringement-plaintiff-still-waiting-for-its-ship-to-come-in","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2067","title":{"rendered":"No Littoral Infringement; Plaintiff Still Waiting for its Ship to Come In"},"content":{"rendered":"

In FastShip, LLC v. U.S.<\/a>, [2017-2248, 2017-2249] (June 5, 2018), held that the U.S. Government did not infringe\u00a0U.S. Patent Nos.
\n5,080,032 and 5,231,946 because the Freedom-class
\nLittoral Combat Ship allegedly covered by the claims was not “manufactured” by or for the Government before the patents expired.<\/p>\n

A patent owner cannot sue the U.S. government or its suppliers for patent infringement.\u00a0 Instead\u00a0 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1498(a) gives the patent owner a cause of action for the use of the patent.<\/p>\n

A representative claim from plaintiff’s patent requires:<\/p>\n

A vessel comprising:
\na hull having a non-stepped profile which\u00a0produces a high pressure area at the bottom\u00a0of the hull in a stern section of the\u00a0hull which intersects a transom to form an\u00a0angle having a vertex at the intersection\u00a0and hydrodynamic lifting of the stern section
\nat a threshold speed without the hull\u00a0planing across the water at a maximum\u00a0velocity determined by a Froude Number,\u00a0the hull having a length in excess of\u00a0200 feet, a displacement in excess of 2000\u00a0tons, a Froude Number in between about\u00a00.42 and 0.90, and a length-to-beam ratio\u00a0between about 5.0 and 7.0;
\nat least one inlet located within the high\u00a0pressure area;
\nat least one waterjet coupled to the at\u00a0least one inlet for discharging water which\u00a0flows from the inlet to the waterjet for\u00a0propelling the vessel;
\na power source coupled to the at least one\u00a0waterjet for propelling water from the at\u00a0least one inlet through the waterjet to\u00a0propel the vessel and to discharge the water\u00a0from an outlet of the waterjet; and
\nwherein\u00a0acceleration of water into the at least one\u00a0inlet and from the at least one waterjet\u00a0produces hydrodynamic lift at the at least
\none inlet which is additional to the lifting\u00a0produced by the bottom of the hull in the\u00a0high pressure area which increases efficiency
\nof the hull and reduces drag.<\/p>\n

On May 18, 2010, when the patents-in-suit expired, one ship (the LCS-1) was completed and in\u00a0use by the Navy, but a second ship (the LCS-3) was still under construction.\u00a0 The Court of Federal Claims awarded plaintiff $6,449,585.82 in damages for LCS-1, but no damages for LCS-3, and plaintiff appealed.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the undisputed facts demonstrate that LCS-3 was not\u00a0\u201cmanufactured\u201d when the patents-in-suit expired in May\u00a02010. The Federal Circuit said that the asserted claims disclose a vessel comprising \u201cat least one waterjet coupled to the at least one\u00a0inlet for discharging water which flows from the inlet to\u00a0the waterjet for propelling the vessel,\u201d while\u00a0the record demonstrates\u00a0that all four waterjets and impeller shafts were installed\u00a0\u00a0in July 2010.\u00a0\u00a0Moreover, the claims also required a hull, which was not completed until the erection of the bow\u00a0module\u00a0 . during August 2010,\u201d at the earliest.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of an award for LCS-3 ship, and upped the award for LCS-1 to $7,117,271.82.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In FastShip, LLC v. U.S., [2017-2248, 2017-2249] (June 5, 2018), held that the U.S. Government did not infringe\u00a0U.S. Patent Nos. 5,080,032 and 5,231,946 because the Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ship allegedly covered by the claims was not “manufactured” by or for … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2067","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2067","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2067"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2067\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2068,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2067\/revisions\/2068"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2067"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2067"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2067"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}