Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc. v. Shaw Environmental, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Nos. 2006-1391, 2006-1408 (2007)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Shaw Environmental, Inc. (Shaw) (defendant) contracted with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (government) to perform hazardous waste remediation work at government-owned sites. The contract included an authorization-and-consent clause, which stated that Shaw had the government’s authorization and consent to use any invention covered by a United States patent if necessary to comply with (1) contract specifications or provisions; or (2) written government directives. Shaw was required to submit a workplan with detailed specifications to the government for approval prior to commencing work and then perform in strict accordance with the approved plan. Shaw’s approved workplan involved the use of a hazardous waste remediation procedure patented by Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc. (Sevenson) (plaintiff). Sevenson filed a patent-infringement claim against Shaw in district court, arguing that the use of its patented procedure was infringing because it did not fulfill the primary purpose of Shaw’s government contract. Shaw moved for summary judgment, raising the affirmative defense of contractor immunity, and arguing that the government was the proper target of Sevenson’s suit. The district court granted Shaw summary judgment. Sevenson appealed to the Federal Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Linn, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
