# 0R$6$PdAt

lJntW 

# @nitr!

# $tstts [,outt of

# /e[eru[ @lsims No. l6-1094C 

### (Filed: March 

### 10,2017)

******   ** * *** *** ****** *:i* *** ***'i1. ,| 

### CARL RAYMOND AMOS,



# Plaintiff, *



### * 4


### THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.



### OPINION AND ORDER Damich, Senior Judge
On September 

### l, 2016, 

### Plaintift Carl Raymond 

### Amos,

### filed a complaint 

### pro se against the 

### United States under claims 

### for breach 

### ofcopyright under28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1498, 

### violations of the 

### Digital Millennium Copyright 

### Act 

### (DMCA) (17 

### U.S.C. $ 1203, 1204), Lanham 

### Act (15 

### U.S.C. $ 1125), as

### well as the Racketeer 

### Influenced and 

### Corrupt Organizations 

### Act (RICO) (18 

### U.S.C. $ 1962). On December 

### 12,2016, 

### Plaintiff submitted an amended 

### complaint. On January 6, 2017, Defendant 

### filed a

### motion to dismiss pursuant

### to Rule 12(b)(1), 

### (6) ofthe 

### United States Court 

### of Federal Claims.


### In its 

### motion to dismiss, Defendant arguesthatthey did 

### notwaive its sovereign 

### immunity, the 

### Plaintiff s

### claim is

### time baned, and 

### Plaintiff did not state a

### claim upon 

### which relief can be

### granted. For the reasons set

### forth below, the 

### Court 

### GRANTS Defendant's 

### motion to dismiss.l



### Statement of Facts 

## A. The

### Contract
On November 30, 2009, the Smithsonian 

### Institution's Office of Contracting entered 

### into a contract 

### with Freelon Group, 

### Inc.for "[a]rchitectural and engineering design services and construction 

### of the 

### National Museum 

### of African American History 

# ' Plaintiff filed a 

### motion to compel on December 20, 2016. The 

### motion is 

### DENIED as 

### MOOT in light ofthis 

### opinion. 

# FILED

MAR 

## I 0 2017 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

,(* *t**,t 

### *,i* * * {,* *** *** *** * * * * * :l*** * * * **



### ?01,r+ 

### t

## a00 00EE 

## 1013 b851and

### Culture." See 

### Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss. 

### Ex.

### A, Contract 

### No. FlOCC10067, 

### at A-1

(hereinafter 

### "Ex.

## A"). The contract between Freelon and Defendant 

### did not include an 

### authorization and consent clause 

### lor copyright infringement.2 

### Def.'s Mot.to Dismiss at 

### 3. The contract 

### did include a

### provision entitled 

### "No Infringement," which expressly 

### prohibited the Freelon Group. Inc. 

### from 

### "infring[ing] any

. . .

### copyright, trademark, 

### or other 

### intellectual property right (including trade secrets)

. . .

## ." Ex.

### A at

### A-73 ($ H.t 1.4). 

## B. The Alleged 

### Violations Plaintiffpleads that in 

### 2009 and 2012-2013, he gave the Defendant notice 

### that "the selected Design Concept 

### Submittal was the 

### Plaintiff s

### IP." Pl.'s Amended 

### Complaint. 

### I.l.c.. Plaintiff presented a 

### list of

### thirty copyright registrations and 

### further submits amore detailed 

### registrationfor copyright numbers: Y Au0005267 64 ("Jwahmose"), registered 

### Jlune22,200l, and

### VAu001225290 C'JWAHMOSE Pyramidal and 

### Collinear 

### Building"), registered November 9, 20 I

### 5.r See 

### Complaint 

### (filed Sept. 1, 2016), 

### Ex.

### C2. It is alleged that Freelon Group, 

### Inc. and,

### transitively the Defendant, 

### violated these copyrights. 

# II. Discussion
The 

### Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant 

### infringed on his 

### copyright, as

### well as 

### violated the 

### DMCA, Lanham 

### Act, and 

### RICO. Defendant maintains 

### that:

## (l) it did not 

### waive sovereign 

### immunity, (2) the 

### Plaintiff s

### claim is

### time baned, 

### (3)this Court lacks 

### jurisdiction to adjudicate the 

### DMCA, Lanham, and 

### RICO claims, and (4) 

### Plaintiff failed to 

### properly state a

### claim upon

### which relief may be 

### granted. Because the Court decides 

### for the Defendant on arguments 

### l-3, the Court 

### will not address 

### Defendant'sfourth argument. 

## A. Sovereign 

### Immunity
In Insurance Company of

### the l{est v. United Stales, the Federal 

### Circuit held that 

### "a suit against the government cannot proceed absent a

### waiver ofsovereign 

### immunity." Ins. Co. o/

### the lilest 

### v. United States,243 

### F.3d 13

### 67, I372 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2001) (stating that the

### waiver must be 

### "unequivocally expressed.") 

### (quoting United States v. 

### Nordic Village, 

### [nc.,503 U.S. 30, 33 

### (1992)). The Supreme 

### Court 

### in United States v. Sherwood, held that 

### failure to obtain a

### waiver 

### of sovereign 

### immunity is a

### jurisdictional 

### bar. United States v. 

### Sherwood,3l2 U.S. 

### 584,586 

### (1941). See also Boyle 

### v. UnitedStates,200 F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2000) 

### ("[a] claimant has a

### claim against the 

### United States 

### only when the 

### United States has consented 

### to be sued

### by means 

### ofa waiver of sovereign 

### immunity."). Moreover, 

### if a

### waiver to sovereign 

### immunity is granted 

### via statute, 

### it must be

### strictly construed 

### infavor of the

### sovemment. See

### Sherwood.3l2 U.S. at

### 590. The Federal

2The Contract between the parties

### did, however, 

### include a

### provision for patent 

### infringement. Def.'s Mot.to Dismiss at 3.

3

### Among the 

### copyright allegations, 

### Plaintiff submitted a broad range 

### of violations including those related

### to "Precious Metals.",See 

### Complaint 

### (filed Sept.

### l, 2016), 

### Ex. C2.

### Circuit has held that at 

### all times 

### it is the 

### Plaintiffs burden

### to prove 

### waiver ofsovereign



### immunity. See 

### Booth v. United Stqtes,990 F.2d 

### 617,619 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1993); seealso Rocovich 

### v. United States, 933 F.2d 991, 993 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1991) 

### ("[a] party seeking the exercise 

### ofjurisdiction in its 

### favor has the burden 

### ofestablishing that such

### jurisdiction exists.") 

### (citing KVOS, 

### Inc. v.Associated 

### Press,299 U.S. 269,278 (1936)).
For waivers 

### of sovereign 

### immunity for copyright infringement, the appropriate statute to reference is 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1498(b). The statute provides, 

### inter 

### alia, that: [W]henever the 

### copyright in any

### work protected under the 

### copyright laws 

### ofthe United States shall be 

### infringed by the 

### United States, 

### by a corporation owned or 

### controlled by the 

### United States, or 

### by a contractor, subcontractor, or any person,

### firm, or corporation acting 

### for the Government and

### with the authorization or consent 

### of the Govemment, the exclusive action 

### which may be brought 

### for such 

### infringement shall be an action by the 

### copyright owner against the 

### United States in the Court 

### of Federal Claims 

### for the recovery 

### ofhis reasonable and entire compensation
as damages 

### for such 

### inlringement.
28 

### U.S.C. S 1498(b).


### Inthe $ 1498 setting, waivers 

### ofsovereign 

### immunity can occur in three instances: 

## (l) when the 

### United States 

### itself infringes a

### copyright, (2) when a corporation owned or 

### controlled by the 

### United States 

### infringes, and 

### (3)when a contractor, subcontractor, or any person,

### firm, or corporation, acting 

### for the Govemment aad

### with its 

### authorization or consent, 

### infringes. 

### Boyle,200 F.3d 

### at 1373. Only the 

### third prong is relevant 

### in this case, as 

### Plaintiff has not alleged thatthe Defendant 

### itself (or corporation 

### it owns or 

### controls) infringed on a 

### copyright, but instead, alleged that a government contractor copied his

### work. To 

### infringe on a

### copyright, one must prove 

### "(l ) ownership 

### ofa valid copyright, and 

### (2) copying

### of constituent elements 

### ofthe work that are

### original." Feist Publ'ns, 

### Inc. v. 

### Rural Tel. Serv. 

### Co.,499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991) 

### (citing 

### Harper 

### & Row, 

### Publrs. v. 

### Nation 

### Enters.,4'll U.S. 539,s48 

### (r98s)).
Under Boyle, a

### plaintiff must also show thatthe contractor 

### (in this case Freelon Group, 

### Inc.) was acting 

### for the Defendant

### with its authorization or 

### consent. Boyle,200 F

. 

### 3dat13'73. See also Auerbach v. Sverdrup 

### Corp.,829 F.2d, 17

### 5, 179 

### (D.C. 

### Cir. 1987) (recognizing that the

### third prong "extends the 

### waivertothird parties acting 

### for the govemment and

### with the govemment's 

### 'authorization or 

### consent."'), S. Rep. 

### No. 1877, 86th Cong., 2d Sess.3-4, reprinted 

### in 1960 U.S. Code Cong. 

### & Admin. News 3444, 3444-45 

### ("The language 

### ofthe bill is tothe effect thatthe exclusive remedy 

### of the owner 

### ofthe copyright against the 

### United States shall be

### only in those cases in 

### which the 

### infringement was made 

### with the authorization or gonsent 

### ofthe Govemment. 

### Itwould,therefore, 

### follow that 

### all other infringements 

### would not transfer 

### liability tothe U.S.



### Government.").
The mere existence

### ofa contract between the Defendant and Freelon Group Inc., is 

### not enough 

### to establish that authorization or consent was granted, but rather, a

### plaintiff must show thatthe Defendant authorized the 

### infringement of designs before 

### immunity is 

### waived. Boyle,200 F.3d 

### at 

### 1373. ln order

### to prove 

### waiver of 

### immunity by authorization and consent, there must be

### explicit acts 

### or extrinsic evidence that show that the govemment intended

### to accept 

### liability for a specific act 

### of 

### infringement. Auerbach v. Sverdrup 

### Corp.,829 l:.2d, 

### at 179. (emphasis 

### added). Thus, "evidence 

### of implied consent 

### might 

### suffice."

# Zl According toAuerhach, evidence probative 

### of implied consent could include a 

### ''contracting 

### olficer['s] instructions," "specifications or drawings 

### which 

### impliedly sanction and necessitate 

### infringement," or 

### "retroactive consent" given 

### by the 

### government. Id. at 180 

### (internal citations 

### omitted). Here, in the contract between the Defendant and Freelon Group 

### Inc. (Ex.

### A), there is no 

### provision authorizing the 

### infringement 

### ofcopyrights. Since there is no express 

### provision, the 

### Plaintiff would need 

### to show that the Defendant 

### impliedly authorized the 

### infringement. Plaintiffhas not met this burden. 

### Plaintiff alleges 

### in his Responsea, that after he put the Smithsonian on notice

### to his copyrights,
the higher echelon management 

### who were made aware 

### butfailed to intervene, 

### only gave unstated approval 

### or implied consent 

### to infringe on other's 

### valid registered

### copyrights and other 

### IP. The Smithsonian 

### Institution's actions 

### did basically authorize the then bankrupt and 

### insolvent Contractors to continue 

### withtheir IP 

### Heist in 2012-2016 and presently.


### Pl.'s Resp. at

### 8. Notice tothe Smithsonian 

### ofcopyright infringement, however, does not alter thefact that the contract language 

### did not authorize Freelon Group 

### to infringe, asthe Defendant points 

### out. See 

### Ex.

### A, at

### A-73 (stating that Freelon Group Inc., 

### "will not 

### infringe any

. . .

### copyright, trademark or other 

### intellectual property right (including trade secrets).

.

### ."). Mere notice tothe Smithsonian, a 

### non-infringing party, about 

### infringement by another 

### party,where the other party is 

### contractually bound not 

### to infringe, 

### logically cannot constitute 

### implied authorization 

### to 

### infringe. Nor does 

### it create aduty on the part 

### of the Smithsonian 

### to preventthe 

### infringement.
In additionto notice, 

### Plaintiff arguesthatthe 

### inclusion of an 

### indemnification clause constitutes 

### implied authorization. Defendant maintains that the mere 

### inclusion

### of an 

### indemnification clause "does 

### not suggest a

### different conclusion," especially 

### in 

### light

### of

a

### Plaintiff titles this document, 

### "Motion to Compel and or Demand Defendant to Produce 

### Copyright Certificate(s) and 

### Motionto Quash Defendant's 

### Motion to Dismiss 

### With 

### Plaintiff s Response and Rebuttal 

### to Defendant's 

### Motionto Dismiss" 

### filed on February 

### 6,2017 (hereinafter 

### "Pl.'s Resp.")the express 

### provision against copyright 

### infringement. Def.'s 

### Mot. to Dismiss at

### 9. The

contract between the Defendant and Freelon Group, 

### Inc. provided thatthe contractor is obligated 

### to indemnify the Defendant against 

### all claims, 

### including, but 

### not limited to, "damages, losses, costs, 

### liabilities, expenses 

### (including settlement expenses), reasonable attorney's fees

### andjudgments incurred 

### by or asserted against" the 

### Defendant. Ex.

### A, at 4.-65 ($ 

### H.4.1). Indeed,

### to suggest the mere 

### inclusion 

### ofa robust 

### indemnity provision would negate the express language 

### ofthe contract against 

### copyright infringement and 

### provide authorization or consent by the govemment is 

### illogical. Rather,this underscores the 

### Govemment's position that Freelon

### would be responsible 

### for any 

### copgight infringement.
The Court does not come tothe conclusion thatthe Defendant 

### waived its sovereign 

### immunity through an 

### implied authodzation clause or the 

### indemnification clause. Simply stated,the 

### Plaintiff failedto plead 

### how Freelon 

### Group, Inc. acted on 

### authorization by the Defendant, and, therefore; this Court must dismiss the 

### claim for lack 

### ofjurisdiction. 

## B. Statute 

### of 

### Limitations
Inthe alternative, the Govemment argues thatthe case must be dismissed as

### it is 

### time barred.
Statute 

### of limitations are

### jurisdictional requirements 

### to

### file lawsuits, -/oftn R. Sand 

### & Grovel Co.

### v. United States, 552 

### U.S. 130, 134 (2008), and 

### it is the burden

### ofthe plaintiff to establish 

### jurisdiction. McNutt v. Ceneral 

### Molors Acceplance Corp. of 

### Ind., 298 

### U.S. 178, 189

### (1936). In copyright infringement cases, 

### "no recovery shall be had 

### for any 

### infringement of a

### copyright covered by

### this subsection committed more than three years 

### prior tothe

### filing ofthe

### complaint." 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1498(b).


### In his amended 

### complaint, 

### Plaintiff alleges thatthe 

### copyright infringement began accruing as early as

### 2009. Pl.'s Amended 

### Complaint. I.1 

### .c. In 

### Plaintiff s

### motion however, he claims that his suit is not

### time barred because he registered his 

### copyrights as late as

### 2015. Contrary 

### to 

### Plaintiffs argument, the date one registers a

### copyright is 

### not the date

### which triggers the

### jurisdictional clock; instead, 

### registration is 

### only aprerequisite 

### to suingthe govemment or any other 

### infringer under 17 

### U.S.C. $411 (the 

### Copyright 

### Act). The

### jurisdictional clock begins to run under federal 

### copyright law when, "one has knowledge 

### ofa violation or is chargeable 

### with such 

### knowledge." Roley v. 

### New 

## llorld Pictures, Ltd. 

### , 19 F.3d 479, 481 (9th 

### Cir. 1994). See 

### also ll/eber v.

## Gffin Records, 

### Inc., 63 F. Supp. 

### 2d 458,464 

### (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 

### (quoting Merchant v. 

### Levy,92 F.3d 51, 56 (2nd 

### Cir. 1996)) (a

### copyright claim accrues 

### "when a

### plaintiff knows or has reason

### to know 

### of the inj 

### ury upon

### which the 

### claim is premised."). 

### Plaintiff alleges that he had 

### copyrights asearly as 1994 on the

### JWAHMOSE Pyramidal and 

### Collinear 

### Building, Jwahmose, and an

### additional

### thirty copyrights. He then alleges that he 

### informed the Smithsonian 

### of copyright violations 

### with regard to these 

### copyrights as early as

### 2009. This is the year, 2009, that the

### jurisdictional clock began to

### run. The claims. therefore. 

### would have had

### to have been

### filed no later than 

### 2012.



### Plaintiff did not hle the 

### complaint in this matter 

### until 2016. Thus, the case is

### time barred and must bedismissed. 

## C. This 

### Court Lacks 

### Jurisdiction 

### for DCMA, Lanham Act, and 

### RICO Claims
In 

### Plaintiffs original complaint, he alleged thatthe Defendant 

### violated the 

### DCMA, Lanham 

### Act, and 

### RICO. In his response tothe Defendant's 

### motion to dismiss, 

### Plaintiff claims that he amended his 

### complaint to seek 

### "only remedy 

### for Copyright Infringement in the Honorable Court 

### of Federal

### Claims." Pl.'s Response at

### 9. However, after 

### reviewing the amended 

### complaint, 

### Plaintiff is

### still allegingthat Defendant 

### violated 

### RICO. Just to remain 

### unequivocally clear,this Court does not have subject matter 

### jurisdiction over any 

### ofthese claims, therefore; they are

### dismissed. Stanwyck v, 

### United 

### States,l27 Fed. 

### Cl. 308, 313-15 (2016) 

### (barring RICO claims in the USCFC), 

### Iiber|., Ammunition, Inc.

### v. United Stares, 101 Fed. 

### Cl. 581, 589-92 (201 1) 

### (barring Lanham 

### Act claims in the 

### USCFC), Blueport Co., 

### LLCv. United 

### States,533 

### F'3d 1374, 1384 (2008) 

### (baning 

### DMCA claims 

### in the 

### USCFC). 

# III. Conclusion
For the reasons set

### forth above, the 

### Court 

### GRANTS Defendant's 

### motion to 

### dismiss. The 

### Clerk is directed 

### to enterjudgement accordingly. 

### It is so 

### ORDERED.



### EDWARDTDAMICH