Digest of Sheridan v. U.S., No. 2015-5073 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 8, 2015) (non-precedential). On appeal from Ct. Fed. Cls. Before Dyk, Taranto and Hughes. Per curiam.
Procedural Posture: Plaintiff patentee appealed dismissal of patent infringement claim against the U.S. based on infringement allegations against private third-parties for lack of jurisdiction and, in the alternative, failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. CAFC affirmed.
- Jurisdiction: The Court of Federal Claims did not err in finding that it lacked jurisdiction with respect to a claim under 22 U.S.C. § 2351. The Tucker Act provides jurisdiction “only if the particular statute is one that mandates monetary relief against the United States when violated.” However, “[n]owhere did Congress provide for a cause of action to secure monetary relief against the government for any violations of section 2351.”
- Failure to State a Claim: The Court of Federal Claims did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s claims under 22 U.S.C. § 2356. Section 2356 is limited to infringement committed “in connection with the furnishing of assistance under [the Foreign Assistance Act].” Plaintiff did not allege facts involving furnishing of assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act, only infringement by private third-party companies. Nor did the Court of Federal Claims err in dismissing plaintiff’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1498. The CAFC explained that “[s]ection 1498 only authorizes monetary suits against the U.S. in two instances: when the U.S. infringes a patent, and when another person infringes a patent acting on behalf of the U.S.” Plaintiff did not allege infringement by the U.S. And although plaintiff alleged infringement by private third-party companies, plaintiff did not allege that the private third-party infringers had authorization from or otherwise were acting on behalf of the U.S. Therefore, plaintiff’s claims under 22 U.S.C. § 2356 and 28 U.S.C. § 1498 failed to state a claim and properly were dismissed.