Contractor Using Alleged Infringing Method Is Immune from Patent Infringement Suit
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.22.07
In Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc. v. Shaw Environmental, Inc. (Nos. 06-1391 & -1408; February 21, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirms the district court's decision that a suit against a contractor was barred by government-contractor immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 1498 ("Section 1498"). Sevenson sued Shaw for infringing several patents directed to treating hazardous waste by applying phosphoric acid. In response, Shaw asserted that the U.S. government was the proper defendant under Section 1498, and the district court agreed. On appeal, the Federal Circuit states that Shaw's work under the contract explicitly required the use of the infringing method, and, therefore, Shaw was immune. The panel further states that questions of contract interpretation in contractor-immunity cases are governed by Federal Circuit law.
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
