## Facts

- Autogiro Company of America owned patents covering rotor structures and control systems for rotary-wing aircraft.
- The United States allegedly used the patented technology in military helicopters and related aircraft structures without authorization.
- Autogiro sued the United States in the Court of Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1498 seeking “reasonable and entire compensation” for government use of the inventions.
- The case began with 26 asserted patents, was narrowed through amendments and pretrial proceedings, and proceeded to trial on 16 patents.
- The trial record was extensive, including numerous witnesses, exhibits, and a lengthy transcript.
- A trial commissioner issued detailed findings, concluding that 15 of 16 patents (and 85 of 86 claims) were valid and infringed, with one patent and one claim not infringed.
- Autogiro did not challenge the commissioner’s findings; the United States filed exceptions as to the patents found valid and infringed.
- The court addressed liability only and left the calculation of compensation for later proceedings.

## Issues

1. How should the asserted patent claims be construed, including the proper use of the specification, drawings, and prosecution history in defining claim scope?
2. Applying the proper claim constructions, which asserted claims were valid over the prior art?
3. Which valid claims were infringed by the accused government helicopters and related structures for purposes of liability under 28 U.S.C. § 1498?

## Decision

- The Court of Claims agreed in part and disagreed in part with the commissioner’s liability determinations.
- The court held that claims of eleven patents were valid and infringed by various government aircraft and structures.
- The court held that other asserted patents or claims were not infringed (or otherwise not recoverable) when the accused devices fell outside the claims as properly construed.
- The court applied the Patent Act of 1952 as the controlling law for patents granted on or before January 1, 1953.
- The matter proceeded only on liability; determination of the amount of compensation was reserved for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Patent infringement analysis proceeds in two steps: (1) construe the claims to determine scope and meaning; then (2) compare the properly construed claims to the accused device to determine infringement.
- Claim construction must be grounded in the intrinsic evidence, including the claim language read in view of the specification and drawings.
- Prosecution history may limit claim scope by showing what the patentee surrendered or represented to obtain allowance; such limitations can bar recapture of disclaimed subject matter.
- Claims may not be enlarged beyond their language and what the intrinsic record supports; infringement requires that the accused structure fall within the construed claims, including any legally recognized equivalents.
- Validity and infringement must be assessed claim-by-claim against the prior art and against the accused device’s function, operation, and result as compared to the claimed invention.

## Conclusion

The Court of Claims narrowed the commissioner’s liability findings, holding the United States liable under 28 U.S.C. § 1498 only for the government’s use of those rotorcraft-related patent claims that remained valid and were infringed after construing the claims in light of the specification and prosecution history, with compensation left for later determination.


Autogiro Co. of Am. v. United States, 384 F.2d 391 (Ct. Cl. 1967)