Posts Tagged: "TSA"

Whether TSA Action is Attributable for Direct Infringement is Genuine Issue of Fact

The key issue in the present appeal, in light of Akamai V, is whether TSA’s performance of the final two steps of the patented method claims can be attributed to Travel Sentry, such that Travel Sentry is responsible for infringing the relevant claims… Under Akamai V, direct infringement under § 271(a) occurs where all steps of a claimed method are performed by a single entity. When more than one actor is involved in practicing the steps, the court considers whether the acts of one entity are attributable to the other such that a single entity is effectively responsible for the infringement. An entity will be held responsible for another’s performance of method steps where it directs or controls that performance. This is a question of fact.

Robert Schaffer & Joseph Robinson

January 5, 2018

Possibility of bomb in Russian plane crash will shift focus towards bomb detection tech

Given all of these issues with these conventional bomb detection methods, what are the innovations being developed in response? One Israeli explosive detection tech developer, Tracense Systems, has developed a biosensor nanotechnology which mimics the way dogs can sense explosives through smell and reportedly outperforms canine bomb detectors. The University of California, Berkeley, has also contributed to research and development in nanotechnology fields for detecting bombs. Mechanical engineering researchers have created a light-based plasmon sensor capable of detecting chemical traces up to 0.4 parts per billion. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have innovated a bomb sensor system which utilizes the properties of proteins found in bee venom.

Steve Brachmann

November 10, 2015

Patent owner must seek remedy in Federal Court of Claims for alleged TSA infringement

Astornet sued NCR Government Systems, MorphoTrust, and BAE Systems Inc., alleging that they supplied the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) with certain boarding pass scanning systems, and that TSA’s use of the equipment infringed or would infringe its patent. The complaints alleged that the defendants “induced (and contributed to) direct infringement by TSA by virtue of TSA’s use of equipment supplied by the defendants.” The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal based on 28 U.S.C. § 1498 barring the suits by limiting Astornet’s remedy to an action against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims.

Joseph Robinson & Robert Schaffer

September 25, 2015