## Facts

- David A. Tropp owned U.S. Patent Nos. 7,021,537 and 7,036,728, claiming methods for a dual-access baggage lock system used in airline luggage screening.
- The claimed methods generally involve: (1) providing locks with a consumer-access feature and a master-key feature for screeners, (2) marking the locks/bags to signal master-key access, (3) entering an agreement with a screening entity to use master keys for marked locks when needed, and (4) marketing the system as allowing inspection and relocking without cutting the lock.
- Travel Sentry operated a “Travel Sentry Certified” program for luggage locks that could be opened by passengers (combination) or by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) using master “passkeys.”
- A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) governed the Travel Sentry–TSA relationship: Travel Sentry provided passkeys; TSA agreed to use them during screening and to use reasonable efforts to relock certified locks after inspection.
- Tropp asserted that Travel Sentry’s coordination with TSA resulted in direct infringement of his method claims, and he sued both Travel Sentry and multiple luggage/lock companies participating in the program.

## Issues

1. Whether, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and the divided-infringement framework, Travel Sentry could be liable for direct infringement of Tropp’s method claims when TSA performed certain method steps.
2. Whether evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find that Travel Sentry “directed or controlled” TSA by (a) conditioning TSA’s participation or receipt of program benefits on performing method steps and (b) establishing the manner or timing of TSA’s performance.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit vacated the summary judgment of no direct infringement and remanded.
- Applying the post-Akamai standard, the court held a reasonable jury could find TSA’s performance of relevant steps attributable to Travel Sentry.
- The record could support findings that Travel Sentry conditioned TSA’s receipt of benefits from the program on TSA’s performance of certain steps and structured the manner or timing of that performance.
- The district court’s focus on whether Travel Sentry “masterminded” TSA’s conduct reflected a superseded legal standard.

## Legal Principles

- A single entity may be liable for direct infringement of a method claim under § 271(a) even when multiple actors perform the steps, if the accused entity “directs or controls” the others’ performance.
- “Direction or control” may be shown where the accused entity (1) conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of one or more method steps, and (2) establishes the manner or timing of that performance.
- Summary judgment is improper if record evidence, viewed in the nonmovant’s favor, could allow a reasonable jury to find both prongs satisfied through contractual or similar arrangements governing third-party conduct.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that evidence regarding Travel Sentry’s agreement and operational arrangement with TSA could allow a jury to attribute TSA’s screening-related method steps to Travel Sentry, requiring vacatur of the no-infringement summary judgment and remand for further proceedings under the Akamai divided-infringement standard.


Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, 877 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)