## Facts

- Sevenson owned multiple patents covering hazardous-waste remediation methods using phosphoric-acid treatment.
- The United States owned and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers managed a lead-contaminated site near Colonie, New York.
- Shaw contracted with the Corps under two remediation contracts (a TERC and later a PRAC) to perform cleanup at government-owned sites, including the Colonie site.
- Both contracts included an authorization-and-consent clause authorizing use of patented inventions when use necessarily resulted from complying with contract specifications or written instructions from the contracting officer.
- Shaw was required to submit a detailed work plan for the Colonie site for government review and approval and, once approved, to perform in accordance with that plan.
- Sevenson alleged Shaw’s government-approved remediation plan used Sevenson’s patented phosphoric-acid method and sued Shaw directly for patent infringement in district court rather than suing the United States in the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a).
- The district court granted summary judgment for Shaw, concluding § 1498(a) made the United States the proper defendant because Shaw’s accused use was for the government and with government authorization and consent.

## Issues

1. Whether Shaw’s alleged use of Sevenson’s patented remediation method was “for the Government” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a).
2. Whether the government provided “authorization and consent” under § 1498(a) through the contracts’ authorization-and-consent clause and its approval of Shaw’s work plan.
3. Whether § 1498(a) made an action against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims Sevenson’s exclusive remedy, barring the district-court infringement suit against Shaw.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Shaw.
- Shaw’s accused remediation work at a government-owned site under Corps contracts was “for the Government.”
- The contracts’ authorization-and-consent clause, together with the government’s approval of a work plan that required the challenged method, satisfied the “authorization and consent” requirement.
- Sevenson’s exclusive remedy for the complained-of use lay against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims under § 1498(a), not against Shaw in district court.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), when a patented invention is used or manufactured “by or for the United States” without license, the patent holder’s remedy is an action against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims.
- A contractor’s use is treated as use “by the United States” when it is “for the Government” and “with the authorization or consent of the Government.”
- A standard authorization-and-consent clause can supply government authorization and consent where patented use necessarily results from compliance with contract specifications or written contracting-officer instructions.
- Government review and approval of a contractor work plan, coupled with a contractual duty to perform according to that plan, can establish that patented use necessarily resulted from required performance.
- § 1498(a) does not require the government to direct a patented method by name; it is enough that compliance with government-approved requirements necessitates the use.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that § 1498(a) barred Sevenson’s infringement suit against Shaw because Shaw performed remediation for the United States and, through contract authorization-and-consent terms and government-approved work plans, used the accused method with the government’s authorization and consent, leaving Sevenson to seek compensation only from the United States in the Court of Federal Claims.


Sevenson Env’t Servs., Inc. v. Shaw Env’t, Inc., 477 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007)