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 | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
