Opinion ID: 446865
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Burden of Proof in the Claims Court

Text: 56 At trial, Lemelson had the burden of proving infringement by a preponderance of the evidence. Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 717 F.2d 1351, 1361, 219 USPQ 473, 480 (Fed.Cir.1983). This burden extends to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents as well as literal infringement. 57 Lemelson brought this action under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1498 2 seeking just compensation for unauthorized use and manufacture by or for the United States of the accused CMMs. The Claims Court held that the proof required for liability under section 1498 was substantially synonymous with the proof required for a claim of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. Secs. 271 and 281. The court required plaintiff to prove that the patent claims in suit were infringed under the following standard: 58 [I]t is incumbent upon plaintiff to adduce evidence that the Government actually used the accused devices in an infringing manner, or practiced the precise methods claimed. Merely proffering evidence that the measuring devices procured by the Government might be operatively assembled in an infringing mode, or that the machines are capable of executing the claimed methods, does not prove infringement. 59 Lemelson disagrees with the court's assignment of the burden of proof, contending that the court erred in requiring him to prove actual use of an accused devices in order to prove infringement. In support he cites cases from one of our predecessors, the Court of Claims, which held that use under section 1498 could be found even where the government, although not actively using an accused device, had the device available for use. See, e.g., Olsson v. United States, 25 F.Supp. 495, 497, 37 USPQ 767, 769 (Ct.Cl.1938), cert. denied, 307 U.S. 621, 59 S.Ct. 792, 83 L.Ed. 1500 (1939) (howitzers disassembled only for storage purposes, but ready for use should the need arise, constitutes use). 60 We reject Lemelson's argument. Although this court has noted that a section 1498 action and a title 35 action are only parallel and not identical, Motorola, Inc. v. United States, 729 F.2d 765, 768, 221 USPQ 297, 299 (Fed.Cir.1984) (section 1498 does not incorporate 35 U.S.C. Sec. 287), the principles of claim construction and reading claims on accused devices and methods are the same for either type of action. We think the issue properly posed, however, is not whether the infringement analysis for a section 1498 action differs from that of a title 35 action, but rather, whether the burden of proving the structure of an accused device (or its mode of operation) in a section 1498 action differs from the burden in a title 35 action. We conclude that the burden is the same. 61 Olsson and its progeny do not stand for the proposition that infringement for section 1498 purposes is met simply by showing that parts delivered to the government are capable of being configured in an infringing manner. In Olsson, the accused howitzers were completely assembled and later disassembled for storage purposes. There was no question that the assembled howitzers embodied the claimed invention and therefore infringed. Thus, all Olsson held on this point was that an infringing device available for use, like a device actually in use, constitutes infringing use under section 1498. 62 Generally, infringement can occur ony when the claimed combination has been assembled and is used or is available for use. Decca Ltd. v. United States, 640 F.2d 1156, 1168, 209 USPQ 52, 61 (Ct.Cl.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 819, 102 S.Ct. 99, 70 L.Ed.2d 89 (1981); cf. Paper Converting Machine Co. v. Magna-Graphics Corp., 745 F.2d 11, 19-20, 223 USPQ 591, 597 (Fed.Cir.1984) (infringement found in the testing of significant, unpatented assemblies of elements, which enabled the infringer to deliver the patented combination in parts to the buyer, although the entire patented combination together was not tested). In the present case, Lemelson failed to meet his burden, not because he failed to prove that the government used the accused devices, but because he failed to prove that the accused devices embodied the claimed invention. As to apparatus claim 1 of the '042 patent, the trial court found non-infringement on the basis that certain admittedly present physical components of the accused CMMs did not correspond to claim 1's manipulation means. 63 As to method claim 15 of the '833 patent and method claim 12 of the '635 patent, the government did not admit to the modes in which the accused CCMs had been operated or to the peripheral equipment including computer software used in conjunction with the CMMs. In these circumstances, the trial court was correct in requiring Lemelson to prove the manner in which the CMMs were operated. For method claims, a plaintiff must prove the modes in which the accused devices have been operated and the manner in which those modes infringe the patent claims. See, e.g., Roberts Dairy Co. v. United States, 530 F.2d 1342, 1354-55, 198 USPQ 383 (Ct.Cl.1976).