In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 16-346C

Filed Under Seal: April 8, 2021

Reissued: June 3, 2021*

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

GEOSPATIAL TECHNOLOGY 

ASSOCIATES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Patent Invalidity; Summary Judgment; 

RCFC 56; Novelty; Anticipation; Priority 

Date; 35 U.S.C. §102; 28 U.S.C. § 1498.

Richard T. Matthews, Counsel of Record, Williams Mullen, P.C., Raleigh, NC, for 

plaintiff.

Jenna Munnelly, Trial Attorney, Gary L. Hausken, Director, Scott Stewart, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

GRIGGSBY, Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

In this patent and copyright infringement action, Geospatial Technology Associates, LLC 

(“GTA”) alleges that the United States has infringed upon one or more of the claims of U.S. 

Patent No. 8,897,489 (the “‘489 Patent”) and upon GTA’s registered copyright rights in certain 

software code (the “NINJA.pro Copyright”). See generally 4th Am. Compl. The government 

* This Memorandum Opinion and Order was originally filed under seal on April 8, 2021. ECF No. 247. 

The parties were given an opportunity to advise the Court of their views with respect to what information, 

if any, should be redacted from the Memorandum Opinion and Order. On May 10, 2021, GTA filed a 

joint status report on behalf of the parties stating that the parties had no redactions to the Memorandum 

Opinion and Order. ECF No. 254. And so, the Court is reissuing its Memorandum Opinion and Order, 

dated April 8, 2021, as the public opinion.
2

has filed a brief on patent invalidity and the parties have filed cross-motions for summary 

judgment on the priority and conception dates for the ‘489 Patent and patent invalidity issues, 

pursuant to Rule 56 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). See 

generally Def. Br.; Pl. Resp. and MSJ; Def. MSJ. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

DENIES GTA’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS-IN-PART the government’s 

cross-motion for summary judgment. 

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

A. Factual Background

In this patent and copyright infringement action, GTA alleges that several government 

agencies, programs, platforms and sensors have used software algorithms and software code that 

utilize the claimed subject matter of the ‘489 Patent and infringe upon one or more claims of the 

‘489 Patent. See generally 4th Am. Compl. GTA also alleges that these government agencies, 

programs, platforms and sensors infringe upon its NINJA.pro Copyright.2 Id. As relief, GTA 

seeks to recover monetary damages from the government. Id. at Request for Relief. 

1. The ‘489 Patent 

As background, the ‘489 Patent patents technology involving automated image 

processing and target detection. See generally ‘489 Patent. This patent was filed on January 28, 

2011, and GTA maintains that it relates back to provisional application No. 61/337,065, which 

was filed on January 29, 2010 (the “‘065 Provisional Application”). Id.

1 The facts recited in this Memorandum Opinion and Order are taken from the fourth amended complaint 

(“4th Am. Compl.”); the ‘489 Patent; the government’s brief on patent invalidity (“Def. Br.”); GTA’s 

response to the government’s brief on patent invalidity and motion for summary judgment (“Pl. Resp. and 

MSJ”) and the exhibits attached thereto (“Pl. Ex.”); the government’s reply in support of its patent 

invalidity brief (“Def. Reply Br.”); the government’s cross-motion for summary judgment (“Def. MSJ”); 

GTA’s response and reply in support of its motion for summary judgment (“Pl. Reply”); and the 

government’s reply in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment (“Def. Reply”). Except where 

otherwise noted, all facts recited herein are undisputed. 

2 The United States Copyright Office issued U.S. Copyright Registration No. TX 8-420-604, bearing an 

effective registration date of July 15, 2017, for work entitled “Methodsfor Object-Based Identification,

Sorting and Ranking of Target Detection and Apparatuses Thereof.” 4th Am. Compl. Ex. 2. William 

Basener is identified as the author of the computer program that is the subject of this copyright. Id. GTA 

is identified as the copyright claimant on the certificate of registration. Id. 
3

The ‘065 Provisional Application is entitled “Methods for Object-Based Sorting and 

Ranking of Target Detections and Devices Thereof.” Pl. Ex. C at 1. The ‘065 Provisional 

Application states, in relevant part, that: 

[T]his Object-Based Sorting and Ranking of Target Detections (OBSR) 

technology is a new method for sorting and ranking target detection scores 

in mulit [sic]-band spectral imagery. . . . The list of detections can contain 

metadata, such as time, latitude, longitude, nearby detected materials, and 

can be searched and cataloged as a database.

Given a collection of one or more images, a statistical target detection filter 

is applied using one or more signatures from a library. The set of detection 

scores on pixels in a single image for a single target is called a detection 

plane. Each pixel is ranked by the number of standard deviations from the 

mean for the detection plane to give a statistical score for every pixel in the 

image collection. This score can be used to compare the strength of 

detections across images and targets.

A second, spatial, process is applied to turn the per-pixel statistical scores 

into an object-based score. The highest scoring pixel in the image collection 

is identified (call it x) and a local region around this pixel is chosen. 

Endmembers . . . are chosen from this local region after the top statistical 

detection scores for the given target are masked out. The convex hull of 

these endmembers is a geometric model of the background for the detected 

pixel. The pixel is then “unmixed” by finding abundances . . . that give the

best approximation of the pixel spectra as a linear combination of the 

background endmembers and the target . . . .

Id. at 3-4.

In November 2008, the inventor of the ‘489 Patent, Dr. William Basener, and his wife 

prepared an unsolicited draft proposal, entitled “Mathematically-Optimized Target Detection in 

Spectral Imagery” (the “Unsolicited Draft Proposal”). Def. Br. Ex. D at 1. The Unsolicited 

Draft Proposal states, in relevant part, that: 

We propose to conduct basic research into the mathematical foundations of 

target detection in hyper/mulit [sic]-spectral imaging to achieve two 

objectives: 

1. Develop a Spectral Discrimination Prediction (SPD) [sic] algorithm, 

including software, that 1) can predict the relative performance of a given 

algorithm detecting a given spectra at multiple fill fractions in a given 

image, 2) predict the confuser materials for a given spectra in an image, and 

3) predict the top performing detection algorithm for a given spectra and 

image.
4

2. Develop a suite of algorithms that use SDP to optimize target detection 

performance beyond the NGA 5 year goal.

Id. at 3. 

On November 25, 2014, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) 

issued the ‘489 Patent to the Rochester Institute of Technology (“RIT”). See generally ‘489 

Patent. Thereafter, RIT and GTA entered into an exclusive license agreement, whereby RIT 

transferred all substantial rights in the ‘489 Patent, including copyright rights in the NINJA.pro 

software, to GTA on November 12, 2015. 4th Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 20-23, 30. 

The invention, as described in the ‘489 Patent abstract, is as follows: 

A method, non-transitory computer readable medium, and apparatus that 

provides object-based identification, sorting and ranking of target 

detections includes determining a target detection score for each pixel in 

each of one or more images for each of one or more targets. A region around 

one or more of the pixels with the determined detection scores which are 

higher than the determined detection scores for the remaining pixels in each 

of the one or more of images is identified. An object based score for each 

of the identified regions in each of the one or more images is determined. 

The one or more identified regions with the determined object based score 

for each region is provided. 

‘489 Patent at 1. Figure 2 of the ‘489 Patent provides an exemplary example of the method for 

target detection as shown below: 
5

Id. at 3. 

The ‘489 Patent provides that the method for target detection involves five steps. See id.

at 4:45-6:27. First, obtaining the images. Id. at 4:45-4:50. Second, applying a target detection 

algorithm to determine a target detection score for each pixel. Id. at 4:51-4:60. Third, 

determining an object-based score for identified regions from the determined target detection 

scores (although other types of scores for other identification aspects could be determined). Id.

at 5:3-5:10. Fourth, obtaining geographic location information associated with each of the 

images at capture. Id. at 6:5-6:11. And, lastly, the fifth step involves providing one or more 

identified regions with the determined object-based score for each region. Id. at 6:16-6:27.

The ‘489 Patent also provides that each step of the process described above is performed 

using the exemplary example of the target detection processing apparatus contained in the ‘489 

Patent as shown below: 
6

Id. at 2.

2. Claims Of The ‘489 Patent 

The ‘489 Patent consists of 33 claims, 30 of which are the subject of this action. See 

generally Pl. Claim Constr. Br.; see also 4

th Am. Compl. at ¶ 157. Specifically, the ‘489 Patent 

consists of 12 independent claims and 21 dependent claims. Id. at 7. In this regard, Claims 2, 6, 

7, 8, 9, 28 and 29 depend upon Claim 1; Claims 11, 15, 17, 18, 30 and 31 depend upon Claim 10; 

and Claims 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32 and 33 depend upon Claim 19. See ‘489 Patent at 6:58-13:9.

Claim 1 is the first independent claim, and this claim provides:

A method for identification, sorting and ranking detections of one or more targets, 

the method comprising: 

determining with a target detection processing apparatus a target detection score 

for each pixel of a spectral image for one or more targets by obtaining with the 

target detection processing apparatus a signature for one or more of the targets 

for the image, and applying with the target detection processing apparatus the 

statistical target detection filter using the one or more obtained signatures to rank 

each of the pixels by its statistical score; 

identifying with the target detection processing apparatus a region around one or 

more of the pixels with the determined detection scores which are higher than a

first score in said image;

determining with the target detection processing apparatus an object-based spectral 

identification score for each of the identified regions in said image; and 

providing with the target detection processing apparatus the one or more identified 

regions with the determined object-based score for each region. 

‘489 Patent at 6:57-7:10.
7

Claim 3 is the second independent claim, and this claim provides:

A method for identification, sorting and ranking detections of one or more targets, 

the method comprising:

determining with a target detection processing apparatus a target detection score 

for each pixel in each of one or more images for each of one or more targets;

identifying with the target detection processing apparatus a region around one or 

more of the pixels with the determined detection scores which are higher than 

a first score in each of the one or more of images;

determining with the target detection processing apparatus an object-based score 

for each of the identified regions in each of the one or more images; and

providing with the target detection processing apparatus the one or more identified 

regions with the determined object-based score for each region, wherein the 

determining a target detection score further comprises:

obtaining with the target detection processing apparatus a signature for one or more 

of the targets for each of the one or more images; and

applying with the target detection processing apparatus the statistical target 

detection filter using the one or more obtained signatures to rank each of the 

pixels by a number of standard deviations from a mean for each of the one or 

more images to determine the statistical deviation score.

Id. at 7:19-7:43.

Claim 4 is the third independent claim, and this claim provides:

A method for identification, sorting and ranking detections of one or more targets, 

the method comprising: 

determining with a target detection processing apparatus a target detection score 

for each pixel in each of one or more images for each of one or more targets;

identifying with the target detection processing apparatus a region around one or 

more of the pixels with the determined detection scores which are higher than a 

first score in each of the one or more of images;

determining with the target detection processing apparatus an object-based score 

for each of the identified regions in each of the one or more images; and

providing with the target detection processing apparatus the one or more identified 

regions with the determined object-based score for each region, wherein the 

identifying further comprises:

masking out from each of the regions with the target detection processing apparatus 

the one or more of the pixels in each of the one or more images which have the 

highest determined statistical detection scores in each of the one or more images;

selecting with the target detection processing apparatus one or of the pixels which 

are end members for each of the regions; and

identifying with the target detection processing apparatus a convex hull of the 

selected end members as a boundary for the one or more regions for each of the 

one or more of images.

Id. at 7:44-8:4.
8

Claim 5 is the fourth independent claim, and this claim provides:

A method for identification, sorting and ranking detections of one or more targets, 

the method comprising: 

determining with a target detection processing apparatus a target detection score 

for each pixel in each of one or more images for each of one or more targets;

identifying with the target detection processing apparatus a region around one or 

more of the pixels with the determined detection scores which are higher than a 

first score in each of the one or more of images;

determining with the target detection processing apparatus an object-based score 

for each of the identified regions in each of the one or more images; and

providing with the target detection processing apparatus the one or more identified 

regions with the determined object-based score for each region, wherein the 

determining the object based score further comprises:

unmixing with the target detection processing apparatus the pixel with highest 

determined statistical detection score in each of the identified regions by finding 

one or more abundances to determine pixel spectra; and

comparing with the target detection processing apparatus target spectra for each of 

the one or more targets with the determined pixel spectra to determine the object 

based score for each of the identified regions.

Id. at 8:5-8:29.

Claim 10 is the fifth independent claim, and this claim provides:

A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions for 

identification, sorting and ranking detections of one or more targets comprising 

machine executable code which when executed by at least one processor, causes 

the processor to perform steps comprising: 

determining a target detection score for each pixel in a spectral image for each of 

one or more targets by obtaining a signature for one or more of the targets for 

the image, and applying the statistical target detection filter using the one or 

more obtained signatures to rank each of the pixels by its statistical score;

identifying a region around one or more of the pixels with the determined detection 

scores which are higher than a first score in said image;

determining an object-based spectral identification score for each of the identified 

regions in said image; and

providing the one or more identified regions with the determined object-based 

spectral identification score for each region.

Id. at 8:46-8:64.

Claim 12 is the sixth independent claim, and this claim provides:

A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions for 

identification, sorting and ranking detections of one or more targets comprising 
9

machine executable code which when executed by at least one processor, causes 

the processor to perform steps comprising: 

determining a target detection score for each pixel in each of one or more images 

for each of one or more targets;

identifying a region around one or more of the pixels with the determined detection 

scores which are higher than a first score in each of the one or more of images;

determining an object-based score for each of the identified regions in each of the 

one or more images; and

providing the one or more identified regions with the determined object-based score 

for each region, wherein the determining a target detection score further 

comprises:

obtaining a signature for one or more of the targets for each of the one or more 

images; and

applying the statistical target detection filter using the one or more obtained 

signatures to rank each of the pixels by a number of standard deviations from a 

mean for each of the one or more images to determine the statistical deviation 

score.

Id. at 9:3-9:24.

Claim 13 is the seventh independent claim, and this claim provides:

A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions for 

identification, sorting and ranking detections of one or more targets comprising 

machine executable code which when executed by at least one processor, causes 

the processor to perform steps comprising: 

determining a target detection score for each pixel in each of one or more images 

for each of one or more targets;

identifying a region around one or more of the pixels with the determined detection 

scores which are higher than a first score in each of the one or more of images;

determining an object-based score for each of the identified regions in each of the 

one or more images; and

providing the one or more identified regions with the determined object-based score 

for each region, wherein the identifying further comprises:

masking out from each of the regions the one or more of the pixels in each of the 

one or more images which have the highest determined statistical detection 

scores in each of the one or more images;

selecting one or of the pixels which are end members for each of the regions; and

identifying a convex hull of the selected end members as a boundary for the one or 

more regions for each of the one or more of images.

Id. at 9:25-9:48.

Claim 14 is the eighth independent claim, and this claim provides:

A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions for 

identification, sorting and ranking detections of one or more targets comprising 
10

machine executable code which when executed by at least one processor, causes 

the processor to perform steps comprising: 

determining a target detection score for each pixel in each of one or more images 

for each of one or more targets;

identifying a region around one or more of the pixels with the determined detection 

scores which are higher than a first score in each of the one or more of images;

determining an object-based score for each of the identified regions in each of the 

one or more images; and

providing the one or more identified regions with the determined object-based score 

for each region, wherein the determining the object based score further 

comprises:

unmixing the pixel with highest determined statistical detection score in each of the 

identified regions by finding one or more abundances to determine pixel spectra; 

and

comparing target spectra for each of the one or more targets with the determined 

pixel spectra to determine the object based score for each of the identified 

regions.

Id. at 9:49-10:3. 

Claim 19 is the ninth independent claim, and this claim provides:

A target detection processing apparatus comprising: 

one or more processors;

a memory coupled to the one or more processors which are configured to execute 

programmed instructions stored in the memory comprising: 

determining a target detection score for each pixel in a spectral image for each of 

one or more targets by obtaining a signature for one or more of the targets for 

the image, and applying the statistical target detection filter using the one or 

more obtained signatures to rank each of the pixels by its statistical score;

identifying a region around one or more of the pixels with the determined detection 

scores which are higher than a first score in said image;

determining an object-based spectral identification score for each of the identified 

regions in said image; and

providing the one or more identified regions with the determined object-based 

spectral identification score for each region.

Id. at 10:18-10:37.

Claim 21 is the tenth independent claim, and this claim provides:

A target detection processing apparatus comprising: 

one or more processors;

a memory coupled to the one or more processors which are configured to execute 

programmed instructions stored in the memory comprising:

determining a target detection score for each pixel in each of one or more images 

for each of one or more targets;
11

identifying a region around one or more of the pixels with the determined detection 

scores which are higher than a first score in each of the one or more of images;

determining an object-based score for each of the identified regions in each of the 

one or more images; and

providing the one or more identified regions with the determined object-based score 

for each region, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to 

execute programmed instructions stored in the memory for the determining a 

target detection score further comprising:

obtaining a signature for one or more of the targets for each of the one or more 

images; and

applying the statistical target detection filter using the one or more obtained 

signatures to rank each of the pixels by a number of standard deviations from a 

mean for each of the one or more images to determine the statistical deviation 

score.

Id. at 10:45-11:3.

Claim 22 is the eleventh independent claim, and this claim provides:

A target detection processing apparatus comprising: 

one or more processors;

a memory coupled to the one or more processors which are configured to execute 

programmed instructions stored in the memory comprising:

determining a target detection score for each pixel in each of one or more images 

for each of one or more targets;

identifying a region around one or more of the pixels with the determined detection 

scores which are higher than a first score in each of the one or more of images;

determining an object-based score for each of the identified regions in each of the 

one or more images; and

providing the one or more identified regions with the determined object-based score 

for each region, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to 

execute programmed instructions stored in the memory for the identifying 

further comprising:

masking out from each of the regions the one or more of the pixels in each of the 

one or more images which have the highest determined statistical detection 

scores in each of the one or more images;

selecting one or of the pixels which are end members for each of the regions; and

identifying a convex hull of the selected end members as a boundary for the one or

more regions for each of the one or more of images.

Id. at 11:4-11:31.

Lastly, Claim 23 is the twelfth independent claim, and this claim provides:

A target detection processing apparatus comprising: 

one or more processors;
12

a memory coupled to the one or more processors which are configured to execute 

programmed instructions stored in the memory comprising;

determining a target detection score for each pixel in each of one or more images 

for each of one or more targets;

identifying a region around one or more of the pixels with the determined detection 

scores which are higher than a first score in each of the one or more of images;

determining an object-based score for each of the identified regions in each of the 

one or more images; and

providing the one or more identified regions with the determined object-based score 

for each region, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to 

execute programmed instructions stored in the memory for the determining the 

object based score further comprising:

unmixing the pixel with highest determined statistical detection score in each of the 

identified regions by finding one or more abundances to determine pixel spectra; 

and

comparing target spectra for each of the one or more targets with the determined 

pixel spectra to determine the object based score for each of the identified 

regions.

Id. at 11:32-11:57.

3. The Court’s Construction Of The Terms “Object-Based

Spectral Identification Score” And “Object-Based Score”

On March 7, 2019, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on Claim 

Construction that defined, among other things, the claim term or phrase “object-based spectral 

identification score,” found in Claims 1, 10 and 19, and the claim term or phrase “object-based 

score,” found in Claims 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 21, 22 and 23. See Mar. 7, 2019, Claim Constr. Mem. 

Op. and Order at 32. The Court construed these terms to mean “any metric that is computed 

from the pixels in an identified region using a process that provides better understanding of the 

material or object in the region.” Id. 

4. The ARCHER System

Also relevant to the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on patent invalidity 

issues is the ARCHER system. The Civil Air Patrol ARCHER Hyperspectral Sensor System 

(the “ARCHER system”) is an airborne real-time cueing hyperspectral enhanced reconnaissance 

system procured by the Air Force to increase its search and rescue mission capability. See Def.

Br. Ex. I at US_003214; see also B. Stevenson et al., The Civil Air Patrol ARCHER 

Hyperspectral Sensor System, 5787 Proc. SPIE 17 (2005). The ARCHER system incorporates 

an onboard data processing system to perform numerous real-time processing functions, 
13

including “data acquisition and recording, raw data correction, target detection, cueing and 

chipping, precision image geo-registration, and display and dissemination of image products and 

target cue information.” Id. In addition, the ARCHER system contains, among other things, an 

advanced hyperspectral imaging system and high-resolution camera. Id. at US_003216. The 

system also contains an on-board real-time processor for data calibration, geo-rectification, target 

detection, display and recording. Id. Figure 1 below shows the ARCHER system’s imaging 

geometry.

Id. at US_003217. 

The Civil Air Patrol ARCHER Hyperspectral Sensor System reference states that “[u]pon

detection of a possible ground target by one of the ARCHER spectral algorithms, the processor 

extracts a subregion of image data surrounding that point from each sensor.” Id. at US_003220. 

The reference also states that:

Each of these images is geo-registered and cropped to create a 256 x 256 

pixel chip of the target area. Finally, the two chips are precisely aligned via 

a scene-based correlation shift measurement, and then fused, by combining 

the three-color information of the HSI chip with the higher spatial resolution 

of the HRI. All three chips—HSI, HRI and Fused—are sent to the Chip 

Viewer window (Figure 4) for operator review. The fused chip is also 

overlaid onto the GeoPaint window at the exact location of the detected 

target . . . .

Id. The Air Force developed the ARCHER system in 2004 and deployed the system in 2005. 

Def. Br. Ex. A at ¶ 54.

5. The Stocker And Jones Reports

Both parties have retained experts who have provided expert reports on the priority date 

for the ‘489 Patent and whether the claims of the ‘489 Patent are invalid for lack of novelty, 
14

obviousness, or indefiniteness. See generally Def. Br. Ex. A (“Stocker Report”); Def. Br. Ex. B

(“Jones Report”).

The government’s expert, Alan Stocker, opines in his report that: (1) the priority date for 

the ‘489 Patent is January 28, 2011, the date on which the application that resulted in the patent 

was filed, and (2) the claims of the ‘489 Patent are not novel, are obvious in light of prior art and 

are indefinite. See generally Stocker Report. 

Specifically, with regards to the priority date for the ‘489 Patent, Mr. Stocker opines that

GTA cannot rely upon the filing date for the ‘065 Provisional Application to establish the 

priority date for the ‘489 Patent, because the ‘894 Application, which resulted in the ‘489 Patent 

filed on January 28, 2011, is “substantially different from the ‘065 Provisional Application and 

contains descriptive material and claims not included in the ’065 Provisional Application.” 

Stocker Report at ¶¶ 31-32. In this regard, Mr. Stocker opines that the difference in the titles of 

the two documents and the addition of the term “identification” to the ’894 Application title—as 

well as the references to “identification scores” and “advanced material identification” in the text

of the ’894 Application—“provide strong evidence that the two filings do not describe the same 

invention.” Id. at ¶ 33 (noting that the ’065 Provisional Application is titled “Methods for

Object-Based Sorting and Ranking of Target Detections and Devices Thereof,” whereas the ’894

Application is titled “Methods for Object-Based Identification, Ranking and Sorting of Target

Detections and Apparatuses Thereof”). And so, Mr. Stocker opines that the priority date for the 

‘489 Patent is January 28, 2011, when the ‘894 Application was filed. Id. at ¶ 41.

With regards to the issue of patent invalidity, Mr. Stocker observes in his report that:

The ’489 Patent pertains to automated methods and means for detecting and 

identifying desired targets or materials with known signatures in digitized 

spectral imagery. The overall process is set out in Fig. 2 of the ’489 Patent 

and the corresponding steps outlined in the Claim Construction 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, the processing approach consists of the 

following five top-level elements:

• Obtain Images

• Apply Statistical Detection Filtering

• Identify Regions and Determine Object-Based Scores

• Determine Geographical Information for Identified Regions

• Provide Identified Regions and Object Scores with Geographical

Information
15

Id. at ¶ 42. Mr. Stocker also opines that the claims of the ’489 Patent:

[D]isclose steps encompassing these five major elements across three 

categories: 1) a “method” (i.e. an algorithm), Claims 1 through 9, 28 and 

29; 2) a “computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions” 

(i.e. computer code implementing the algorithm), Claims 10 through 18, 30 

and 31; and 3) an “apparatus” (i.e. processor hardware implementing the 

algorithm), 19 through 27, 32 and 33. 

Id. at ¶ 43. And so, Mr. Stocker concludes that each of the aforementioned steps contained in the 

‘489 Patent was previously known in the art. Id. at ¶ 44. 

In this regard, Mr. Stocker states that “[n]umerous hyperspectral sensor systems 

predating January 28, 2011 had built-in capabilities for acquiring image data for purposes of 

recording, correction and calibration, and higher-level processing functions including target 

detection,” including COMPASS, WARHORSE and ARCHER. Id. at ¶ 46. He also states that

“[a]n early demonstration of real-time detection filtering in an operational hyperspectral imaging 

application was the ARCHER system developed for the Civil Air Patrol in 2004 and deployed 

the following year.” Id. at ¶ 54. 

Mr. Stocker also states that: 

Claim 8 refers to a method for providing geographical information for 

identified regions in hyperspectral imagery. Geolocation of images and 

subregions within images was by no means a novel method or capability to 

a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art [(“POSITA”)] prior to January 28, 

2011. To cite a typical example, the Civil Air Patrol ARCHER system 

deployed in 2005 utilized platform inertial measurement unit (IMU) data 

along with a sensor model to calculate accurate geolocations for targets 

detected in its hyperspectral imagery.

Id. at ¶ 62. Lastly, Mr. Stocker states that: 

Claims 8, 9 and 18 call for “providing” the detected and identified regions 

with their associated object scores and geolocation information. Reporting 

georeferenced target detection and/or identification results to a user, 

operator or analyst was a built-in function of several hyperspectral 

processing tools and processor systems that existed prior to January 28, 

2011. 

Id. at ¶ 63. And so, he concludes that “[v]arious sensor systems which were developed and 

operating before the priority date, including CAP ARCHER, HyCAS and ACES Hy, utilized one 
16

or more of these methods to provide hyperspectral object cues with associated scores and 

locations to operators and analysts. Id.

With regards to determining an object-based spectral identification score, Mr. Stocker 

opines that “[o]bject-based scoring, as described in Claim 1, is a process of comparing

determined (i.e. background-subtracted) pixel spectra with hypothesized target signatures to

compute and rank object-based identification scores associated with each of those signatures for

every object [region of interest] considered.” Id. at ¶ 74. With regard to the limitation found in 

the claims of the ‘489 Patent regarding providing the one or more regions with the determined 

object-based score, Mr. Stocker also opines that “[t]his step of Claim 1 merely provides (i.e. 

reports) the previously determined object-based identification scores associated with each of 

those signatures for every object [region of interest].” Id. at ¶ 76. And so, Mr. Stocker opines

that Claim 1 of the ‘489 Patent is anticipated by the ARCHER system. Id. at ¶ 77. 

In this regard, he observes that:

[T]he ARCHER system performed numerous real-time processing 

functions including data acquisition and recording, raw data correction, 

target detection, cueing and chipping, precision image geo-registration, and 

display and dissemination of image products and target cue information.

The ARCHER system operator was able to select desired signatures from 

an on-board library to initiate adaptive matched filters that automatically 

cued probable target objects, produced resolution-enhanced image chips 

centered on those object cues, and provided tabulated information about the 

cues including normalized detector scores and geolocations. Although not

explicitly noted in the reference, I know from experience that the cued 

objects could be easily ranked by their respective detector scores simply by 

clicking on the displayed column header for those scores (similar to the way 

one sorts entries in a spreadsheet column). . . .

ARCHER also defined local image regions surrounding pixels or 

contiguous clusters of pixels that exceeded a detection threshold. These 

regions were referred to as “chips” and were automatically resolutionenhanced, recorded and displayed in color to the sensor operator to indicate 

the location of a detected object and its local scene context. By generating

these detection-cued regions, ARCHER anticipated the use of methods for 

detailed post-detection analysis of detected objects based on spatial and 

spectral information, including but not limited to target identification based 

on spectral signatures.

Id. at ¶¶ 77-79. 
17

Mr. Stocker also opines that Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 28 and 29 of the ‘489 Patent are not 

novel and are also anticipated by the ARCHER system. Id. at ¶¶ 81-98. With regards to Claims 

2 and 4, he opines that ARCHER and another system, ACES Hy, anticipate the statistical target 

detection filter application step in Claim 2. Id. at ¶¶ 82, 86. With regards to Claim 5, Mr. 

Stocker also opines that the ARCHER and ACES Hy systems performed detected target region 

generation via their built-in “chipping” functions, and he observes that:

[U]nmixing was a conventional practice and would be well-known to the 

[POSITA]. And . . . the ARCHER and ACES Hy systems anticipated 

further exploitation of identified regions associated with detected targets by 

incorporating automatic ‘chipping’ functions. 

Id. at ¶ 87. 

Mr. Stocker further opines regarding Claims 6 and 7 that “the methods of obtaining 

images were widely known,” prior to January 28, 2011, “the ARCHER and ACES Hy systems 

performed this step” and, with regards to Claim 8, the “additional step of providing geographical 

information for target regions in spectral images was routine in the art by January 28, 2011, as 

evidenced by the fact that the ARCHER and ACES Hy systems performed this function 

automatically.” Id. at ¶¶ 89, 92. Lastly, with regards to Claims 28 and 29, Mr. Stocker opines 

that the process described in Claim 28 “was a conventional practice and would be well-known to

[POSITAs] before January 28, 2011” and that “unmixing was a conventional practice and would 

be well-known to the [POSITA] before January 28, 2011.” Id. at ¶¶ 96, 98. 

Mr. Stocker also opines that the ‘489 Patent is invalid due to obviousness. In this regard, 

Mr. Stocker opines that the methods described in the claims of the ‘489 Patent were obvious in 

the context of prior art in the field of hyperspectral image exploitation. Id. at ¶ 99. Specifically,

with regards to Claim 1, Mr. Stocker states that the use of multiple statistical matched filters to 

detect target signals with unknown parameters or signatures “is a well-known technique with a 

long history of applications to a variety of sensor systems.” Id. at ¶ 101. 

Lastly, with regards to indefiniteness, Mr. Stocker opines, among other things, that the 

claims of the ‘489 Patent are indefinite with regards to the claim limitations: (1) “identify 

regions and determine object-based scores;” (2) “determine geographic information for identified 

regions;” and (3) “provide identified regions and object scores with geographical information.” 

Id. at ¶¶ 134-142. Specifically, Mr. Stocker opines that, Claims 4, 5 and 29 of the ’489 Patent 
18

“describe a generic spectral unmixing process in which endmembers are determined from one or 

more selected pixels in each identified region to define a convex hull (i.e. simplex), and 

subsequently used to calculate abundances (i.e. fractional weights) for the endmembers to model 

detected pixel spectra.” Id. at ¶ 134. But, he observes that “it is not stated how the endmembers 

are to be determined, which is itself a major issue in the literature on spectral unmixing.” Id. at ¶

135. Mr. Stocker also opines that “[t]he process by which the endmember abundance weights 

for pixel spectra are to be calculated is also not described in the claims of the ’489 Patent.” Id. at 

¶ 136. And so, Mr. Stocker opines that “[s]ince critical details are missing from the teachings of 

Claims 4, 5 and 29 of the ’489 Patent, a [POSITA] could not be reasonably certain of their

applicability.” Id. at ¶ 137. 

GTA’s expert, Dr. Creed F. Jones III, disagrees with Mr. Stocker’s opinions about the 

priority and conception dates and the validity of the ‘489 Patent and he opines in his report that: 

(1) the priority date for the ‘489 Patent is January 29, 2010, when the ‘065 Provisional 

Application was filed; (2) the conception date of the ‘489 Patent is at least as early as November 

22, 2008; and (3) the ‘489 Patent is not invalid due to lack of novelty, obviousness, or 

indefiniteness. See generally Jones Report. 

With regards to the priority date for the ‘489 Patent, Dr. Jones opines that a POSITA

would conclude that the inventor of the ‘489 Patent had possession of the claimed invention at 

the time the ‘065 Provisional Application was filed. Id. at ¶ 137. In this regard, Dr. Jones 

observes that the ‘065 Provisional Application “includes screen shots and output from an actual 

working embodiment of the invention claimed in the ’489 Patent.”3Id.

Dr. Jones also opines that the conception date of the ’489 Patent is “at least as early as 

November 22, 2008,” the date of the last modification of the Unsolicited Draft Proposal. Id. at ¶

3

 Dr. Jones further observes that paragraphs [0006]-[0008] of the ‘065 Provisional Application “teach the 

same background removal and error (or spectral fit) object-based identification method and formulas as 

set forth in column 5 of the ’489 Patent” and that pages 28-34 of the ‘065 Provisional Application show 

“NINJA output that ranks multiple identified targets and provides error estimates, real detections, and 

possible confusers for each target.” Def. Br. Ex B at ¶¶ 143, 146. And so, Dr. Jones opines that a 

POSITA would recognize that Dr. Basener had possession of an identification algorithm as of the filing 

date of the Provisional Application, making the priority date for the ‘489 Patent being January 29, 2010, 

the filing date of the ‘065 Provisional Application. Id. at ¶¶ 137, 142.
19

149. And so, Dr. Jones concludes that a POSITA would understand that Dr. Basener had 

conceived his invention at least as early as November 22, 2008. Id. at ¶ 153.

With regards to the issue of patent invalidity, Dr. Jones first opines that the government 

has not established that the ARCHER system anticipates the claims of the ‘489 Patent for the 

following five reasons: (1) Mr. Stocker does not identify the specific version of the ARCHER

system that he relies upon as prior art, nor the date on which that version was first publicly used; 

(2) Mr. Stocker’s description of the ARCHER system relies almost entirely upon his own

subjective memory of the ARCHER system, not a single prior art reference or system; (3) Mr. 

Stocker improperly combines the disclosures of the Civil Air Patrol ARCHER Hyperspectral 

Sensor System reference and an unspecified version or versions of the ARCHER system with his 

own, non-public, subjective knowledge of the ARCHER system; (4) Mr. Stocker does not identify

where in any prior art reference each claim limitation is found; and (5) the only specific citation 

that Mr. Stocker provides for any of these references demonstratesthat the ARCHER system did

not explicitly or inherently disclose ranking or target identification. Id. at ¶¶ 248-252.

Specifically relevant to the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, Dr. Jones opines that 

the ARCHER system is “missing two limitations of Claim 1 [of the ‘489 Patent,] and thus

cannot anticipate that claim.” Id. at ¶ 252 (emphasis omitted). And so, Dr. Jones opines that “a 

[POSITA] would not understand that ranking of target detections was‘necessarily present’ in [the 

ARCHER system].” Id. 

With regards to obviousness, Dr. Jones also opines that Mr. Stocker has not shown that 

the claims of the ‘489 Patent are obvious, because Mr. Stocker fails to demonstrate that: (1)

prior art references or prior public uses disclosed or taught each and every limitation of Claim 1,

and (2) it would have been obvious for a POSITA to combine the teachings as is required to 

demonstrate that a combination of references or uses renders a claim obvious. Id. at ¶ 294. 

Lastly, with regards to indefiniteness, Dr. Jones opines that the claims of the ’489 Patent are not 

indefinite, because they are not means-plus-function terms, and, even if the claims could be 

considered to be means-plus-function terms, “the specification would disclose adequate 

corresponding structure.” Id. at ¶ 476. 

B. Relevant Procedural Background 

On July 24, 2020, the government filed a brief on patent invalidity. See generally Def. 
20

Br. On August 7, 2020, GTA filed a response to the government’s brief on patent invalidity and 

a motion for summary judgment on the issues of the conception and priority dates for the ‘489 

Patent and patent invalidity. See generally Pl. Resp. and MSJ. On August 21, 2020, the 

government filed a reply in support of its brief on patent invalidity. See generally Def. Reply Br.

On September 4, 2020, the government filed a response and opposition to GTA’s motion 

for summary judgment and a cross-motion for summary judgment on the issues of the conception 

and priority dates for the ‘489 Patent and patent invalidity. See generally Def. MSJ. On October 

2, 2020, GTA filed a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment and a response and 

opposition to the government’s cross-motion for summary judgment. See generally Pl. Reply. 

On October 9, 2020, the government filed a reply in support of its cross-motion for summary 

judgment. See generally Def. Reply.

The Court held oral arguments on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on 

March 24, 2021. See generally Tr.

The parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment having been fully briefed, the Court 

resolves the pending motions. 

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Patent Infringement Claims Against The Government

Title 28, United States Code, section 1498(a) waives the government’s sovereign 

immunity and provides a remedy “[w]henever an invention described in and covered by a patent 

of the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the 

owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same.” 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a); see also 

Astornet Techs. Inc. v. BAE Sys., Inc., 802 F.3d 1271, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In this regard, 

Section 1498(a) provides that: 

[T]he owner's remedy shall be by action against the United States in the 

United States Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable 

and entire compensation for such use and manufacture. 

Id.

B. RCFC 56
21

Pursuant to RCFC 56, a party is entitled to summary judgment when there is “no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” RCFC 

56(a); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986); Biery v. United States, 

753 F.3d 1279, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A dispute is “genuine” when “the evidence is such that a 

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A 

fact is “material” if it could “affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Id.

The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issues of 

material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). And so, ‘“the inferences to be 

drawn from the underlying facts . . . must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party 

opposing the motion.”’ Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587-88

(1986) (quoting United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962)). 

In making a summary judgment determination, the Court does not weigh the evidence 

presented, but instead must “determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 

U.S. at 249; see also Am. Ins. Co. v. United States, 62 Fed. Cl. 151, 154 (2004); Agosto v. INS, 

436 U.S. 748, 756 (1978) (“[A trial] court generally cannot grant summary judgment based on its 

assessment of the credibility of the evidence presented . . . .”) (citations omitted). Given this, the 

Court may grant summary judgment when “the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational 

trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587.

The above standard applies when the Court considers cross-motions for summary 

judgment. Principal Life Ins. Co. & Subs. v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 82, 89 (2014); see also 

Estate of Hevia v. Portrio Corp., 602 F.3d 34, 40 (1st Cir. 2010). And so, when both parties 

move for summary judgment, ‘“the court must evaluate each party’s motion on its own merits, 

taking care in each instance to draw all reasonable inferences against the party whose motion is 

under consideration.”’ Abbey v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 430, 436 (2011) (quoting Mingus 

Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).

C. Patent Invalidity And Section 102

An invalid patent cannot be infringed. Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 

1920, 1931 (2015) (Scalia, J., dissenting on other grounds) (recognizing the cardinal maxim that 

“[i]t follows, as night the day, that only valid patents can be infringed. To talk of infringing an 

invalid patent is to talk nonsense.”). And so, the Court need not reach the issue of patent 
22

infringement if the claims of the patent are found to be invalid, based upon clear and convincing 

evidence. See, e.g., Del Mar Eng’g Lab’ys v. United States, 524 F.2d 1178, 1186 (Ct. Cl. 1975) 

(“[i]n view of the conclusion on validity, it is unnecessary to reach the question of infringement, 

for an invalid patent cannot be infringed.”) (internal citation omitted); Sparton Corp. v. United 

States, 89 Fed. Cl. 196, 242 (2009) (declining to decide infringement after finding two patents 

invalid for obviousness, and thus holding that the plaintiff “no longer has a claim under 28 

U.S.C. § 1498”).

4

An issued patent is presumed valid—novel, nonobvious, useful, and containing 

patentable subject matter—because the “[US]PTO [is] presumed to do its job.” Microsoft Corp. 

v. I4I Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 97 (2011) (citation omitted); 35 U.S.C. § 282. To rebut this 

presumption, an accused infringer must prove its affirmative defense of invalidity by clear and 

convincing evidence. Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350, 1355 

(Fed. Cir. 2007); Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 363 F.3d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also 

Newell Cos., Inc. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 767 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In this regard, the

Federal Circuit has held that a person cannot obtain a patent unless the invention is new. 

Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 780 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“[t]he patent law imposes 

certain fundamental conditions for patentability, paramount among them being the condition that 

what is sought to be patented, as determined by the claims, be new.”). The pre-AIA version of 

Section 102 provides, in relevant part, that: 

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented 

or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before 

the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or

(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this 

or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than 

one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United 

States[.]

35 U.S.C. § 102(a)-(b) (2006). And so, a patent claim is invalid for a lack of novelty, or 

anticipation, under 35 U.S.C. § 102, if each and every element set forth in the claim is found, 

4 The pre-America Invents Act versions of 35 U.S.C. § 102 is applicable to this case.
23

either expressly or inherently, in a single reference. Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco, Inc., 190 F.3d 

1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

Although anticipation normally requires that a prior art reference disclose each and every 

limitation of a claim, the Federal Circuit has recognized that “a prior art reference may anticipate 

when the claim limitation or limitations not expressly found in that reference are nonetheless 

inherent in it.” Id. at 1347. Given this, “[u]nder the principles of inherency, if the prior art 

necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it anticipates.” Id.

And so, “if granting patent protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to exclude 

the public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated, regardless of whether it 

also covers subject matter not in the prior art.” Id. at 1346 (citing Titanium Metals Corp., 778 

F.2d at 781).

D. Patent Priority Date

Lastly, to ascertain the effective filing date for a patent, the Court must determine a

patent’s priority with respect to earlier patent applications. 35 U.S.C. § 120 (2006). Generally, 

the effective filing date of a patent is presumed to be the filing date apparent on the face of the 

patent, unless the patent examiner found otherwise during prosecution. See PowerOasis, Inc. v. 

T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1305-06 (Fed. Cir. 2008). But, a patent owner can rebut this 

presumption by “com[ing] forward with evidence to prove entitlement to claim priority to an 

earlier filing date,” such that the patent-in-suit should be deemed as filed on the filing date of its 

earlier related patents. Id.; see also Cordance Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 658 F.3d 1330, 1334 

(Fed. Cir. 2011).

“[T]he test for conception is whether the inventor had an idea that was definite and 

permanent enough that one skilled in the art could understand the invention.” Burroughs 

Wellcome Co. v. Barr Lab’ys, Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Federal Circuit has 

defined a “definite and permanent” idea as an idea that is a “specific, settled idea, a particular 

solution to the problem at hand, not just a general goal or research plan.” Id.; see also Coleman 

v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“[i]t is settled that in establishing conception a 

party must show possession of every feature recited in the count, and that every limitation of the 

count must have been known to the inventor at the time of the alleged conception.”) (citation 

omitted).
24

IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS

The government has filed a brief on patent invalidity and the parties have filed crossmotions for summary judgment on the priority and conception dates for the ‘489 Patent and 

several issues related to the validity of the ‘489 Patent. Specifically, the parties present the 

following issues for resolution by the Court: (1) whether GTA has established a conception date 

for the invention claimed in the ‘489 Patent of November 22, 2008; (2) whether GTA has 

established a priority date of January 29, 2010, for the invention claimed in the ‘489 Patent; (3) 

whether the claims of the ‘489 Patent are anticipated by the ARCHER system; (4) whether the 

‘489 Patent is invalid due to obviousness; and (5) whether the ‘489 Patent is invalid due to 

indefiniteness. See generally Def. Br.; Def. MSJ; Pl. Resp. and MSJ; 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 and 

112.

In its motion for summary judgment, GTA argues that the priority date for the ‘489 

Patent is January 29, 2010, because a POSITA would conclude that the inventor of the ‘489 

Patent had possession of the claimed invention at the time that the ‘065 Provisional Application 

was filed. Pl. Resp. and MSJ at 38-41; see also Jones Report at ¶ 137. GTA also contends that 

the conception date for the invention at issue is November 22, 2008, because a POSITA would 

understand that Dr. Basener had conceived of the invention claimed in the ‘489 Patent by that 

date. Pl. Resp. and MSJ at 34-38; see also Jones Report at ¶ 153. 

The government counters that the priority date for the ‘489 Patent is the date on which 

the application that resulted in the patent was filed—January 28, 2011. Def. MSJ at 2-3; see also

Stocker Report at ¶ 41. And so, the government argues that the Court should deny GTA’s 

motion for summary judgment on these threshold issues. Def. MSJ at 3.

The government also presents three invalidity defenses in its cross-motion for summary 

judgment. First, the government argues that the ‘489 Patent is invalid for a lack of novelty, 

because the undisputed material facts in this case show that each claim of the patent was 

anticipated by the ARCHER system. Def. MSJ at 3-4; see also Def. Br. at 12-13. Second, the 

government argues that the ‘489 Patent is invalid for obviousness, because the methods 

described in the claims of the ‘489 Patent were obvious within the context of prior art in the field 

of hyperspectral image exploitation. Def. MSJ at 4-7; see also Def. Br. at 13-21. Lastly, the 

government contends that the ‘489 Patent is also invalid for indefiniteness, because the claims of 
25

the patent cover both apparatus and method of using the apparatus. Def. MSJ at 7-9; see also 

Def. Br. at 21-27. And so, the government requests that the Court grant its cross-motion for 

summary judgment on patent invalidity issues. Def. MSJ at 9.

GTA counters that the government has not shown that the ‘489 Patent is invalid for a lack 

of novelty, non-obviousness, or indefiniteness. Specifically, GTA argues that the government 

neither relies upon a single prior art reference, nor shows that the ARCHER system discloses an 

“object-based score,” to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the claims of the patent 

were anticipated. Pl. Resp. and MSJ at 12-18. GTA also argues that the government has not 

provided evidence of key elements of its obviousness defense, including evidence of a 

motivation to combine prior art. Id. at 18-26. Lastly, GTA argues that the government has not 

shown that the claims of the ‘489 Patent are indefinite, because, among other things, no claims of 

the ‘489 Patent cover both method and apparatus. Id. at 26-34. And so, GTA requests that the 

Court deny the government’s cross-motion for summary judgment on these patent invalidity 

issues. Pl. Reply at 8. 

For the reasons discussed below, the undisputed material facts show that GTA has not 

established a conception date of November 22, 2008, or a priority date of January 29, 2010, for 

the ‘489 Patent. In addition, the undisputed material facts show that the ‘489 Patent is invalid 

due to a lack of novelty, because the government has shown by clear and convincing evidence 

that the ARCHER system anticipates each and every claim of the ‘489 Patent. And so, the Court 

DENIES GTA’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS-IN-PART the government’s 

cross-motion for summary judgment. RCFC 56; 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 112. 

A. GTA Has Not Established A Conception Date Of November 22, 2008

As an initial matter, GTA has not established a conception date of November 22, 2008, 

for the ‘489 Patent. The Federal Circuit has held that “[t]he test for conception is whether the 

inventor had an idea that was definite and permanent enough that one skilled in the art could 

understand the invention.” Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Lab’ys, Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1228 

(Fed. Cir. 1994). And so, to establish a conception date for the invention claimed in the ‘489 

Patent, GTA must show that Dr. Basener had an idea that was definite and permanent enough 

that one skilled in the art could understand the invention claimed in the ‘489 Patent on November

22, 2008. GTA has not made such a showing in this case. 
26

To support its argument that the conception date for the invention claimed in the ‘489 

Patent is November 22, 2008, GTA relies upon an Unsolicited Draft Proposal, last revised on 

November 22, 2008, to show that Dr. Basener had conceived of the invention at issue by that 

date. Pl. Resp. and MSJ at 34; see also Pl. Ex. D at ¶ 4; Def. Br. Ex. D. But, a careful review of 

the Unsolicited Draft Proposal makes clear that this document is a plan for research that does not 

describe the invention claimed in the ‘489 patent. See generally Def. Br. Ex. D. 

Notably, the Unsolicited Draft Proposal states that it is a “proposal” to conduct basic 

research into the mathematical foundations of target detection. Def. Br. Ex. D at 2 (“We propose 

to conduct basic research into the mathematical foundations of target detection . . . .”). The 

Unsolicited Draft Proposal presents a problem—the need to improve target detection algorithms 

and methodology. Id. at 12-14 (discussing the “challenges in the current state-of-the-art target 

detection”). But, a review of this document shows that the draft proposal does not provide the 

specific solution claimed in the ‘489 patent. See id. at 14-19. In fact, the specific invention 

claimed in the ‘489 Patent is not described anywhere in the Unsolicited Draft Proposal. See 

generally id. Given this, the Unsolicited Draft Proposal does not establish that Dr. Basener had 

an idea that was definite and permanent enough for a POSITA to understand the invention 

claimed in the ‘489 Patent. Burroughs Wellcome Co., 40 F.3d at 1228. And so, the Court 

DENIES GTA’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS the government’s cross-motion 

for summary judgment on this issue.5

B. GTA Has Not Established A Priority Date Of January 29, 2010 

GTA also has not established a January 29, 2010, priority date for ‘489 Patent. The 

Court presumes that the priority date for the ‘489 Patent is the filing date for the patent—January 

25, 2011. PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1305-06 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

But, GTA can rebut this presumption by “com[ing] forward with evidence to prove entitlement 

to claim priority to an earlier filing date,” such that the patent-in-suit should be deemed as filed 

5

 The RIT invention plan and NINJA output upon which GTA also relies to show a conception date of 

November 22, 2008, are both undated. Def. Br. at 5-6; Pl. Resp. and MSJ at 34-38 (not disputing that the 

RIT invention plan and the NINJA output relied upon by GTA are undated). And so, neither of these 

documents can establish a November 22, 2008, conception date for the ‘489 Patent.
27

on the filing date of its earlier related patents. Id. Again, GTA has not made such a showing 

here. 

GTA relies upon the ‘065 Provisional Application to show that the ‘489 Patent is entitled 

to a January 29, 2010, priority date. But, a careful review of the ‘065 Provisional Application 

shows that the ‘065 Provisional Application does not enable a POSITA to practice the invention 

claimed in the ‘489 Patent, which includes target identification as well as target detection.

6

 For 

example, the title of the ‘065 Provisional Application refers only to target detection and differs 

from the title of the ‘489 Patent, which includes target identification. Pl. Ex. C at 2, 6, 11-12. 

Indeed, as GTA acknowledges, target identification is not mentioned in any of the claims of the 

‘065 Provisional Application. See id. at 50-51; Pl. Resp. and MSJ at 40 (“[n]otably, the absence 

of the term ‘identification’ in the ‘065 Provisional [Application] is not surprising . . . .”). 

In addition, the field, background and detailed description sections of the ‘065 

Provisional Application also make clear that the ‘065 Provisional Application pertains only to 

target detection. Pl. Ex. C at 12 (the field section states that “[t]his technology relates to methods 

for object-based sorting and target detections and devices thereof”) (emphasis supplied); id. (the 

background section states that “[t]arget detection in spectral digital imagery is the identification 

of known material with a given target spectrum”) (emphasis supplied); id. at 14-15 (the detailed 

description section states that “this Object-Based Sorting and Ranking of Target Detections . . . 

technology is a new method for sorting and ranking target detection scores in multi-band spectral 

imagery.”) (emphasis added).7 Given this, GTA has not shown that the ‘489 Patent is entitled to 

an earlier priority date based upon the ‘065 Provisional Application. And so, the Court DENIES

GTA’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS the government’s cross-motion for 

summary judgment on this issue.8

6

 GTA does not dispute that target identification and target detection are distinct concepts. See Pl. Resp. 

and MSJ at 39-40. 

7

 The government also persuasively argues that the statement in the detailed description of the ‘065 

Provisional Application that a “typical library may have 10-50 target signatures” further indicates that the 

‘065 Provisional Application discusses only target detection, because a library sufficient for target 

identification would require a much larger number of target signatures. Def. Br. at 7; Pl. Ex. C at 16; see 

also Stocker Report at ¶ 35.

8

 The Court is also unpersuaded by GTA’s argument that a POSITA would understand the error metric 

referenced in paragraphs 0006-0008 and page 37 of the ‘065 Provisional Application to be an object-
28

C. The Claims Of The ‘489 Patent Are Anticipated

Turning to the merits of the parties’ arguments on patent invalidity, the government has 

shown by clear and convincing evidence that each and every claim of the ‘489 Patent is 

anticipated by the ARCHER system. And so, for the reasons discussed below, the Court 

concludes that the ‘489 Patent is invalid for a lack of novelty. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).

It is well-established that an invalid patent cannot be infringed. Commil USA, LLC v. 

Cisco Sys., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1920, 1931 (2015) (Scalia, J., dissenting on other grounds) 

(recognizing the cardinal maxim that “[i]t follows, as night the day, that only valid patents can be 

infringed. To talk of infringing an invalid patent is to talk nonsense.”). And so, if the 

government can show that the ‘489 Patent is invalid, based upon clear and convincing evidence, 

the Court need not reach the issue of patent infringement in this case. See, e.g., Del Mar Eng’g 

Lab’ys v. United States, 524 F.2d 1178, 1186 (Ct. Cl. 1975) (“[i]n view of the conclusion on 

validity, it is unnecessary to reach the question of infringement, for an invalid patent cannot be 

infringed.”) (internal citation omitted); Sparton Corp. v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 196, 242 

(2009) (declining to decide infringement after finding two patents invalid for obviousness, and 

thus holding that the plaintiff “no longer has a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1498”).

With regards to the first ground upon which the government argues that the ‘489 Patent is 

invalid—lack of novelty, or anticipation—the Federal Circuit has held that a person cannot 

obtain a patent unless the invention is new. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 780 

(Fed. Cir. 1985) (“[t]he patent law imposes certain fundamental conditions for patentability, 

paramount among them being the condition that what is sought to be patented, as determined by 

the claims, be new.”). The pre-AIA version of Section 102, which applies to this case, also 

provides that: 

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or 

patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, 

before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or

(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in 

based identification score. There is no mention of target identification, or an object-based score, in 

paragraphs 0006-0008 of the ‘065 Provisional Application. See Pl. Ex. C at 15-16.
29

this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more 

than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United 

States[.]

35 U.S.C. § 102(a)-(b) (2006). And so, the ‘489 Patent is invalid for a lack of novelty, or 

anticipation under Section 102, if the government can show by clear and convincing evidence 

that each and every element set forth in the claims of the patent is found, either expressly or 

inherently, in a single reference. Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 

1999). 

In this regard, the Federal Circuit has recognized that “a prior art reference may 

anticipate when the claim limitation or limitations not expressly found in that reference are 

nonetheless inherent in it.” Id. at 1347. And so, “if granting patent protection on the disputed 

claim would allow the patentee to exclude the public from practicing the prior art, then that claim 

is anticipated, regardless of whether it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.” Id. at 1346

(citing Titanium Metals Corp., 778 F.2d at 781).

In this case, the government argues that the Civil Air Patrol ARCHER Hyperspectral 

Sensor System—or the ARCHER system—is such a single reference. Specifically, the 

government argues that the ARCHER system anticipates each of the five “top-level” elements 

found in the ‘489 Patent—obtain images, apply statistical detection filtering, identify regions and 

determine object-based scores, determine geographical information for identified regions and 

provide identified regions and object-based scores with geographical information. Stocker 

Report at ¶ 44; Def. Br. at 12-13. In this regard, the government contends that the ARCHER 

system “performed ‘numerous real-time processing function[s] including data acquisition and 

recording, raw data correction, target detection, cueing and chipping, precision image georegistration, and display and dissemination of images productions and target cue information.’” 

Def. Br. at 12; Stocker Report at ¶ 54 (observing that “[a]n early demonstration of real-time 

detection filtering in an operational hyperspectral imaging application was the ARCHER system 

developed for the Civil Air Patrol in 2004 and deployed the following year.”). And so, the 

government further contends that the ‘489 Patent is invalid due to a lack of novelty, because the 

ARCHER system anticipates the use of methods for detailed post-detection analysis of detected 
30

objects based upon spatial and spectral information. 9 Stocker Report at ¶¶ 77-79. For the 

reasons set forth below, the Court agrees.

1. The ARCHER System Discloses An “Object-Based

Spectral Identification Score” And “Object-Based Score”

As an initial matter, the government has shown that the ARCHER system discloses an 

“object-based spectral identification score” and “object-based score,” as described in Claims 1, 

4, 5, 10, 13, 14, 19, 21, 22 and 23 of the ‘489 Patent. Several claims of the ‘489 Patent contain 

the limitations “determining with the target detection processing apparatus an object-based 

spectral identification score for each,” “determining . . . an object-based score for each of the 

identified regions” and “providing with the target detection processing apparatus the one or more 

identified regions with the determined object-based score for each region.” See, e.g., ‘489 Patent 

at 7:5-7:10, 7:53-7:54. Given this, GTA’s primary rebuttal to the government’s anticipation

defense is that the ARCHER system does not disclose an “object-based spectral identification 

score,” or an “object-based score,” as described in these two limitations. Pl. Resp. and MSJ at 

12-17; see also ‘489 Patent at 6:57-7:10. GTA’s argument is belied by the undisputed material 

facts regarding the ARCHER system.

First, the undisputed material facts show that the ARCHER system’s approach to target 

detection includes determining an “object-based spectral identification score” and an “objectbased score,” as the Court has defined those terms. The Court previously issued a Claim 

Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order on March 7, 2019, that defined the terms “objectbased spectral identification score” and “object-based score” to mean “any metric that is 

computed from the pixels in an identified region using a process that provides better 

understanding of the material or object in the region.” Mar. 7, 2019, Claim Constr. Mem. Op. 

and Order at 32 (emphasis supplied). 

It is undisputed that the Air Force developed the ARCHER system in 2004, and that this 

system is an airborne real-time cueing hyperspectral enhanced reconnaissance system that 

incorporates an onboard data processing system to perform numerous real-time processing 

9 During oral arguments, the government clarified that it is arguing that the ARCHER system was known 

or used by others before the invention of the invention claimed in the ‘489 Patent, and the government is 

utilizing the Civil Air Patrol ARCHER Hyperspectral Sensor System reference to provide the description 

of the ARCHER system. Tr. 21:24-22:4. 
31

functions, including target detection, cueing and chipping, precision image geo-registration and 

display, and dissemination of image products and target cue information. See Def. Br. Ex. I at 

US_003214; see also B. Stevenson et al., The Civil Air Patrol ARCHER Hyperspectral Sensor 

System, 5787 Proc. SPIE 17 (2005); Stocker Report at ¶ 54; see also Pl. Resp. and MSJ at 12-17

(showing that GTA does not dispute the nature of the Archer system as described in the Civil Air 

Patrol ARCHER Hyperspectral Sensor System reference submitted by the government). It is 

also undisputed that the ARCHER system contains an advanced hyperspectral imaging system, 

high-resolution camera and an on-board real-time processor, for target detection, display and 

recording. Id. at US_003216; Pl. Resp. and MSJ at 12-17 (showing that GTA does not dispute

that the ARCHER system includes a hyperspectral imagining system, high resolution camera and 

an on-board, real-time processor). 

The Civil Air Patrol ARCHER Hyperspectral Sensor System reference and the Strategies 

for Hyperspectral Target Detection in Complex Background Environments reference also make 

clear that the ARCHER system’s approach to target detection includes determining an “objectbased spectral identification score.” Specifically, these references explain that the ARCHER 

system determines a “detection statistic” and “target cues” that provide a better understanding of 

the material or object detected in a region, by “eliminat[ing] detected pixel groups that do not 

conform to the expected size range of the [targets].” Def. Reply Br. Ex. A at US_003312. For 

example, the Civil Air Patrol ARCHER Hyperspectral Sensor System reference explains that the 

ARCHER system’s target detection capabilities include “[a]nomaly detection, to find unusual 

objects with unknown spectra in real-time” and “[m]atched detection, to find targets with known 

spectral signatures in real-time.” Def. Br. Ex. I at US_003219. Strategies for Hyperspectral 

Target Detection in Complex Background Environments further explains that the ARCHER 

system: (1) performs target detection by exploiting the difference in the spectral characteristics 

of the target of interest relative to the background materials; (2) reports this difference in terms 

of a “detection statistic” that is “computed on a pixel-by-pixel basis;” and (3) then generates 

“target cues,” by “thresholding the detection statistic image and performing simple . . . filtering 

to eliminate detected pixel groups that do not conform to the expected size range of the 

[targets].” Def. Reply Br. Ex. A at US_003312.

Because these references show that the ARCHER system’s approach to target detection 

includes determining a “detection statistic” and “target cues” that provide a better understanding 
32

of the material or object in a region, by “eliminat[ing] detected pixel groups that do not conform 

to the expected size range of the [targets],” the Court agrees with the government that the 

ARCHER system determines an “object-based identification score,” as that term has been 

defined by the Court. Id.; Mar. 7, 2019, Claim Constr. Mem. Op. and Order at 32. And so, the 

Court concludes that the ARCHER system anticipates the “determining . . . an object-based 

spectral identification score for each of the identified regions in said image” limitation found in 

Claims 1, 10 and 19, and the “determining . . . an object-based score for each region” limitation 

found in Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 21, 22 and 23 of the ‘489 Patent.10

The government has also shown that the ARCHER system anticipates the “providing . . . 

[the] identified regions with the determined object-based score” limitation found in Claims 1, 4, 

5, 10, 13, 14, 19, 21, 22 and 23 of the ‘489 Patent. In this regard, the undisputed material facts 

show that the ARCHER system’s chip viewer window provides the determined detection 

statistics and target cue information to the ARCHER system operator. 

As the government persuasively argued during the oral arguments on the parties’ crossmotions, the ARCHER system “does the providing step [of the ‘489 Patent] because it provides 

the chip viewer that contains the additional spectral and spatial information” derived from 

ARCHER’s target detection algorithms. Tr. at 62:18-62:21. Specifically, the Civil Air Patrol 

ARCHER Hyperspectral Sensor System reference explains that, once the ARCHER system 

detects a possible ground target, the system geo-registers and crops each image “to create a 256 x 

256 pixel chip of the target area,” which is then “sent to the Chip Viewer window . . . for 

operator review.” Def. Br. Ex. I at US_003220. An example of the chip viewer window is 

provided in the Civil Air Patrol ARCHER Hyperspectral Sensor System reference and is 

10 During oral arguments on the parties’ cross-motions, the government explained that “the signature 

matched filter” algorithm performed by the ARCHER system “presents detection scores using spatial 

information,” which are “aggregated using the pixels that exceed certain thresholds in its spatial facial 

process . . . .” Tr. at 59:5-59:11. 
33

reproduced below:

Id. at US_003221; see also Stocker Report at 57. As shown in the figure above, the ARCHER 

system’s chip viewer window provides the ARCHER system operator with target cue 

information, including scores and geolocations for each detected target. Id. 

Mr. Stocker explains in his expert report that the ARCHER system chip viewer window 

allows the system operator to rank the cued targets “by their respective detector scores simply by 

clicking on the displayed column header for those scores (similar to the way one sorts entries in a 

spreadsheet column).” Stocker Report at ¶ 78. Given this, the undisputed material facts show 

that the ARCHER system’s chip viewer window provides a “metric that is computed from the 

pixels in an identified region using a process that provides better understanding of the material or 

object in the region.” Mar. 7, 2019, Claim Constr. Mem. Op. and Order at 32. Because the Civil 

Air Patrol ARCHER Hyperspectral Sensor System reference makes clear that the ARCHER 

system provides a detection score and other target cue information that provides a better 

understanding of the material or object for the ARCHER system operator to view in the chip 

viewer window, the Court agrees with the government that the ARCHER system also anticipates 

the “providing . . . [the] identified regions with the determined object-based score” limitation 

found in Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 13, 14, 19, 21, 22 and 23 of the ‘489 Patent.11

11 The Court is also unpersuaded by GTA’s argument that the “pixel score” (i.e. detection score) 

determined by the ARCHER system is not an “object-based score,” because an object-based score must 

be calculated from all of the image pixels comprising an object. Pl. Resp. and MSJ at 16. The Court’s 

definition of the terms “object-based score” and “object-based identification score” does not include the 

limitation that GTA seeks to impose. See Mar. 7, 2019, Claim Constr. Mem. Op. and Order at 32.
34

2. The ARCHER System Discloses Inherent 

“Masking Out” And “Unmixing” Capabilities

The government has also shown by clear and convincing evidence that the ARCHER 

system anticipates the “masking out” limitations found in Claims 4, 13, 22, 28, 30 and 32 of the 

‘489 Patent and the “unmixing” limitations found in Claims 5, 14, 23, 29, 31 and 33 of the ‘489 

Patent. As shown in the ‘489 Patent, these limitations involve: “masking out from each of the 

regions with the target detection processing apparatus the one or more of the pixels in each of the 

one or more images which have the highest determined statistical detection scores in each of the 

one or more images,” “masking out from each of the regions the one or more of the pixels in 

each of the one or more images which have the highest determined statistical detection scores in 

each of the one or more images,” “unmixing with the target detection processing apparatus the 

pixel with highest determined statistical detection score in each of the identified regions by 

finding one or more abundances to determine pixel spectra” and “unmixing the pixel with 

highest determined statistical detection score in each of the identified regions by finding one or 

more abundances to determine pixel spectra.” See, e.g., ‘489 Patent at 7:60-7:64; 8:22-8:26; 

9:40-9:43; 9:64-9:66. 

The undisputed material facts show that the ARCHER system’s target detection 

algorithms include an inherent “masking out” step as part of the system’s “chipping” function. 

Mr. Stocker explains in his expert report that “masking out” involves removing high-scoring 

pixels to characterize background contributions, to provide a representative ensemble for 

estimating suitable background statistics or endmembers while minimizing contamination from 

potential targets (i.e. the high-scoring pixels). Stocker Report at ¶ 58 (“We often seek to remove 

any target-like features from the estimate. This can be attempted by not including (masking) the 

pixel under test (or a region around the pixel under test) in the covariance matrix estimate.” 

(citation omitted)). As discussed above, the Civil Air Patrol ARCHER Hyperspectral Sensor 

System reference explains that the ARCHER system includes two target detection algorithms—

an anomaly detection algorithm and a matched detection algorithm. Def. Br. Ex. I at 

US_003219. Mr. Stocker explains in his expert report that the ARCHER system uses these 

target detection algorithms to define local image regions surrounding pixels or contiguous 

clusters of pixels that exceed a detection threshold. Stocker Report at ¶ 79. Mr. Stocker further 

explains that “[t]hese regions [are] referred to as ‘chips’ and [are] automatically resolution-
35

enhanced, recorded and displayed in color to the . . . operator to indicate the location of a 

detected target and its local scene context.” Id. 

Because it is undisputed that the ARCHER system’s “chipping” function includes 

defining image regions and indicates to the ARCHER system operator the location and local 

image context surrounding identified chips, the Court concludes that the “masking out” step 

described in the ‘489 Patent is inherent within the ARCHER system’s ability to eliminate pixel 

groups that do not conform to the detection threshold. And so, the Court concludes that the 

ARCHER system anticipates the ‘masking out” step of Claims 4, 13, 22, 28, 30 and 32 of the 

‘489 Patent.

The undisputed material facts regarding the ARCHER system similarly show that this 

system anticipates the “unmixing” limitations found in Claims 5, 14, 23, 29, 31 and 33 of the 

‘489 Patent. Spectral unmixing refers to the “procedure by which the measured spectrum of a 

mixed pixel is decomposed into a collection of constituent spectra, or endmembers, and a set of 

corresponding fractions, or abundances, that indicate the proportion of each endmember present 

in the pixel,” and was well-known in the art prior to 2011. See N. Keshava & J.F. Mustard, 

Spectral Unmixing, 1053-5888 IEE Signal Processing Magazine 44, 44 (Jan. 2002); Stocker 

Report at ¶ 60. The government conceded during oral arguments that the version of the 

ARCHER system described in the Civil Air Patrol ARCHER Hyperspectral Sensor System 

reference does not include an unmixing algorithm. Tr. at 69:3-69:10. But, the government also 

persuasively argued that the ARCHER system can, nonetheless, support such an unmixing 

algorithm, because unmixing is inherent within the ARCHER system’s capabilities. Tr. at 69:18-

69:19.

Mr. Stocker opines in his expert report that “Claim 4 [of the ‘489 Patent] describes a 

generic spectral unmixing process in which endmembers are determined from one or more 

selected pixels in each identified region to define a convex hull (i.e. simplex), and subsequently 

used to calculate abundances . . . for the endmembers to model detected pixel spectra.” Stocker 

Report at ¶ 108. In this regard, the Strategies for Hyperspectral Target Detection in Complex 

Background Environments reference provides an overview of different unmixing techniques and 

approaches that can be implemented in the ARCHER system. See generally Def. Reply Br. Ex. 

A at US_003314-17. For example, the Strategies for Hyperspectral Target Detection in Complex 
36

Background Environments reference discusses the N-FINDR algorithm, which “use[s] . . . the 

simplex maximization technique,” whereby it “selects as endmembers the set of scene spectra 

that maximizes the volume of a simplex defined with these spectra as endmembers.” Id. at 

US_003314. The Strategies for Hyperspectral Target Detection in Complex Background 

Environments reference also states with regards to the ARCHER system that “[t]he matched 

subspace, change detection, and spatial-spectral methods overviewed in this paper provide some 

of the primary avenues that [Air Force Research Laboratory] is pursuing to more fully exploit the 

inherent detection capabilities supported by such sensor systems.” Id. at US_003319. Given 

this, the undisputed material facts regarding the ARCHER system show that the ARCHER 

system can support an unmixing algorithm of the kind described in the Strategies for 

Hyperspectral Target Detection in Complex Background Environments reference. Id.; Atlas 

Powder Co., 190 F.3d at 1347 (“[A] prior art reference may anticipate when the claim limitation 

or limitations not expressly found in that reference are nonetheless inherent in it.”). And so, the 

Court concludes that the ARCHER system also anticipates the unmixing step found within 

Claims 5, 14, 23, 29, 31 and 33 of the ‘489 Patent.

3. The Government Has Shown That The ARCHER 

System Anticipates Every Claim Of The ‘489 Patent

As a final matter, the undisputed material facts also show that the government has 

asserted anticipation contentions for every claim of the ‘489 patent. As discussed above, the 

government has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the ARCHER system anticipates 

the limitations found in Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 13, 14, 19, 21, 22 and 23 of the ‘489 Patent regarding 

“determining . . . an object-based spectral identification score for each of the identified regions in 

[an] image,” “determining . . . an object-based score for each of the identified regions” and 

“providing . . . [the] identified regions with the determined object-based score.” The government 

has also shown by clear and convincing evidence that the ARCHER system anticipates the 

“masking out” limitations found in Claims 4, 13, 22, 28, 30 and 32 of the ‘489 Patent and the 

“unmixing” limitations found in Claims 5, 14, 23, 29, 31 and 33 of the ‘489 Patent. GTA also 

does not dispute that the ARCHER system anticipates the other limitations found in these claims. 

See Pl. Resp. and MSJ at 12-17. 

A careful review of the government’s claims chart and Mr. Stocker’s expert report also 

show that the government has addressed each and every element of the claims of the ‘489 Patent 
37

and explained why each of these claims were anticipated by the ARCHER system. See Stocker 

Report at ¶ 43 (detailing the redundancies of the claims of the ‘489 patent), ¶ 86 (discussing 

claim 4 and equivalent claim 13 and whether these claims are anticipated by ARCHER), ¶ 87 

(discussing claim 5 and equivalent claim 14 and whether these claims are anticipated by 

ARCHER), ¶ 96 (discussing claim 28 and equivalent claims 30 and 32 and whether these claims 

are anticipated by ARCHER), ¶ 98 (discussing claim 29 and equivalent claim 31 and whether 

these claims are anticipated by ARCHER); see also Def. Br. Ex. J. And so, the Court is satisfied 

that the government has asserted anticipation contentions for each and every claim of the ‘489 

Patent. 

Because the undisputed material facts in this case show that: (1) the ARCHER system

discloses an “object-based spectral identification score” and an “object-based score;” (2) the 

ARCHER system anticipates the “masking out” and “unmixing” limitations found in certain 

claims of the ‘489 Patent; and (3) the government has shown by clear and convincing evidence 

that the ARCHER system anticipates each and every element of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 

11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 of the ‘489 

Patent, the Court concludes that the ‘489 Patent is invalid for a lack of novelty. And so, the 

Court DENIES GTA’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS-IN-PART the 

government’s cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of patent invalidity.12

V. CONCLUSION

In sum, GTA has not established a conception date of November 22, 2008, or a priority 

date of January 29, 2010, for the invention claimed in the ‘489 Patent. The government has 

shown, however, by clear and convincing evidence, that the ARCHER system anticipates each 

and every claim of the ‘489 patent. And so, for the foregoing reasons, the Court:

1. DENIES GTA’s motion for summary judgment; and 

2. GRANTS-IN-PART the government’s cross-motion for summary judgment.

Some of the information contained in this Memorandum Opinion and Order may be 

considered protected information subject to the Protective Order entered in this matter on August 

12 Because the Court concludes that the ‘489 Patent is invalid for a lack of novelty, the Court does not 

reach the issues of whether the ‘489 Patent is invalid due to obviousness and indefiniteness.
38

13, 2019. This Memorandum Opinion and Order shall therefore be filed UNDER SEAL. The 

parties shall review the Memorandum Opinion and Order to determine whether, in their view, 

any information should be redacted in accordance with the terms of the Protective Order prior to 

publication.

The parties shall FILE a joint status report, on or before May 10, 2021, that:

1. Identifies the information, if any, that they contend should be redacted, together with 

an explanation of the basis for each proposed redaction.

2. States their respective views regarding how this matter should proceed, in light of the 

Court’s decision on patent invalidity.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Lydia Kay Griggsby

LYDIA KAY GRIGGSBY

Judge