1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Stopped in its Tracks: The Government’s Failure to Track Software Use Constitutes Infringement Under 28 U.S.C. § 1498

Stopped in its Tracks: The Government’s Failure to Track Software Use Constitutes Infringement Under 28 U.S.C. § 1498

Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.09.21

In Bitmanagement Software GmbH v. United States, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a decision by the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) that found the Navy was not liable for copyright infringement even though it was undisputed that the Navy made 429,604 copies of Bitmanagement’s BS Contact Geo software when it only paid for 119 copies. The COFC reasoned that the Navy was not liable because it had an implied-in-fact license that permitted it to make copies. The Federal Circuit’s majority agreed the Navy had an implied-in-fact license, but that the COFC’s analysis should not have stopped there; rather, the COFC should have also considered whether the Navy complied with the terms of that implied license. The Navy did not. According to the Court, the implied license was conditioned on the Navy’s use of a license-tracking software at the time of copying to monitor usage by limiting the number of simultaneous users of Bitmanagement’s software. However, the Navy failed to use that license-tracking software. The Court held that the Navy’s copying outside of the scope of the implied license created liability for infringement. In a concurring opinion, Judge Newman reached the same conclusion; however, she disagreed as to the existence of an implied license, simply finding that the Navy’s “massive copying” infringed Bitmanagement’s copyright.

The case was remanded to the COFC for the calculation of a reasonable royalty for the Navy’s actual usage in excess of the licensed number of copies, which the burden is on the Government to prove.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights