Carrier Corp. v. United States

• Decision Date: 26 March 1976
• Docket Number: No. 267-74.,267-74.
• Citation: 534 F.2d 244
• Parties: CARRIER CORPORATION v. The UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Claims Court

534 F.2d 244

CARRIER CORPORATION v. The UNITED STATES.

No. 267-74.

United States Court of Claims.

January 28, 1976.

As Amended on Denial of Rehearing March 26, 1976.

Robert S. Swecker, Washington, D.C., attorney of record, for plaintiff. Donald F. Daley, Syracuse, N. Y., and Regis E. Slutter, Washington, D.C., of counsel.

Thomas J. Scott, Jr., Arlington, Va., with whom was Asst. Atty. Gen. Rex E. Lee, Washington, D.C., for defendant. Robert G. Hilton, Washington, D.C., of counsel.

Before COWEN, Chief Judge, DURFEE, Senior Judge, DAVIS, SKELTON, KASHIWA, KUNZIG, and BENNETT, Judges.

COWEN, Chief Judge.

This case, before the court on defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, requires us to determine whether the alleged use of plaintiff's patented invention in the performance of a refuse collection contract was a use by or for the Government within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a).¹ Although this is, surprisingly, a case of first impression in this court,² the legal issues presented have arisen in a number of patent infringement cases in other courts.³

Plaintiff, Carrier Corporation, is successor in interest to Dempster Brothers, Inc., and is owner by assignment of patents relating to certain features of refuse compactors and containers. Although the Government's motion for partial summary judgment is addressed solely to alleged infringement of plaintiff's patents resulting from the use of certain refuse handling equipment in the performance of a service contract awarded by the Department of the Air Force for the collection and removal of refuse at Andrews Air Force Base, resolution of the legal issues presented by the parties will simplify the remainder of the case which involves a number of other contracts awarded under substantially similar circumstances.

Under the Andrews contract, the contractor, Associated Refuse and Compaction Services, Inc. (Associated Refuse), was required, among other things, to furnish and install certain equipment, including refuse compactors and containers of specified size, at various locations on the base, and to remove at regular intervals all refuse collected in the containers. Since some of the facilities on the base were large enough to use efficiently stationary refuse compactors which compress solid waste into detachable containers, use of such equipment was expressly provided for by the terms of the contract.

Plaintiff originally claimed that it was entitled to compensation under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), because the refuse compactors and detachable containers utilized by Associated Refuse in the performance of the Andrews contract incorporated the subject matter of two of plaintiff's patents — No. 3,229,622, which relates to the refuse compactors, and No. 3,144,149, which relates to the detachable containers. However, since plaintiff has apparently withdrawn all claims involving the former patent, we need only consider plaintiff's allegations regarding the detachable containers.

In order to have jurisdiction of an action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), this court must be satisfied that the use complained of is a use by or for the Government within the meaning of that section. Defendant, in support of its motion, contends that this court is without jurisdiction of any claims arising out of the Andrews contract, because any use by Associated Refuse of plaintiff's patented invention in the performance of that contract was not a use by or for the Government within the meaning of Section 1498(a). Since we find that we are in agreement with this contention, we grant defendant's motion for partial summary judgment.

The patented invention allegedly used in the performance of the Andrews contract is an apparatus for hoisting a detachable refuse container onto a truck bed for transportation to a dumping site and for placing the container back on the ground after it has been emptied. Obviously, such a device had a usefulness only with respect to Associated Refuse's duty to regularly pick up and empty all refuse containers at the base. It has no usefulness at all in relation to the function performed by the Government — i. e., the placing of refuse into the compactors and the activation of the devices electrically to compress the refuse into the detachable containers. Accordingly, we find that if there was any use of plaintiff's patented invention, such use was by the contractor and not by the Government.

A more difficult question, however, is whether the alleged use of plaintiff's patented invention was a use for the Government with its authorization or consent. Defendant contends that it expressly withheld its authorization and consent and, therefore, that any use of plaintiff's invention was not a use for the Government within the meaning of Section 1498(a). Defendant bases this contention on the inclusion in the Andrews contract of a standard clause which limits the Government's authorization and consent to:

all use and manufacture, in the performance of this contract * * * of any invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States (i) embodied in the structure or composition of any article the delivery of which is accepted by the Government under this contract, or (ii) utilized in the machinery, tools, or methods the use of which necessarily results from compliance by the Contractor or the using subcontractor with (a) specifications or written provisions now or hereafter forming a part of this contract, or (b) specific written instructions given by the Contracting Officer directing the manner of performance.⁴

Defendant contends that since neither the contract specifications nor any specific written instructions from the contracting officer required Associated Refuse to use a particular type of equipment, the Government has not authorized or consented to any infringement of plaintiff's patent in the performance of the Andrews contract.⁵ We agree.

The specifications of the contract require only that the detachable containers be "steel refuse containers that are fully enclosed and fireproof as specifically manufactured for refuse collection purposes." Technical Provision (TP) 3-05d. No structure or performance characteristics are required. Mr. Legrant Campbell, who, as technical representative of the contracting officer, was primarily responsible for administration of the contract, states unequivocally in an uncontroverted affidavit that "at no time was the particular equipment to be used in performance of the contract specified or required." Of similar thrust is the affidavit of Mr. Carroll David Case, the president of Associated Refuse, who states that "neither the written specification attached to the basic contract nor the Government technical representative who administered the performance of this contract ever specified any preference for a particular type of machine. The only requirement was that the devices furnished be capable of compacting refuse and that the containers be hauled away at specific intervals."

During the term of the Andrews contract, Associated Refuse's standard inventory included only detachable containers of the type plaintiff accuses of infringing its patent. During this entire period, however, detachable containers were available in the open market which could have been purchased and used, and which would not have infringed plaintiff's patent. In view of the general availability of noninfringing equipment, and the fact that use of equipment covered by plaintiff's patent was not required by the contract specifications or within instructions of the contracting officer, we find that the Government has not authorized or consented to any infringement of plaintiff's patent.

It is true, as plaintiff states, that the contract provides that:

TP 3-03a: Positioning of all containers will be coordinated with the Contracting Officer or the Technical Representative.

TP 3-05a: All equipment for use in accordance with the provisions of this Section shall become operative only after inspection and acceptance by the Contracting Officer or the Technical Representative.

These provisions alone, however, do not provide a sufficient basis for a finding that the Government authorized or consented to any infringement of plaintiff's patented invention. The first, TP 3-03a, appears to be intended merely to give the Government some control over the physical positioning of the containers on the base. The second, TP 3-05a, does provide that all equipment "shall become operative only after inspection and acceptance by the Contracting Officer or the Technical Representative." However, it is clear that the inspection and acceptance contemplated by that provision are only of a general nature and are intended merely to insure that the equipment complies with the contract specifications — i. e., that the containers are steel refuse containers of specified size and the compactors are capable of compacting refuse. In his affidavit, Mr. Campbell states that his primary duty, under the terms of the contract, including TP 3-05, was merely "to insure that all the services required under the contract were performed, namely that the trash containers were picked up, cleaned and replaced according to the required schedule" and "that he had no knowledge of the structure of the devices used." Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the mere inclusion of these provisions in the contract and the contractor's use of the allegedly infringing equipment, constitute sufficient evidence to establish the Government's authorization and consent. To hold otherwise would, in effect, mean that in every instance where the Government desires to avoid potential liability under Section 1498(a), it would be required to conduct a detailed and time-consuming investigation to determine whether the equipment the contractor selects for his own convenience infringes any outstanding patents.

Plaintiff attempts to avoid the effect of the authorization and consent clause...