Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
October 21, 2014, Decided
[*1361] [***1689] Hughes, Circuit Judge.
IRIS Corporation brought suit in district court, alleging that Japan Airlines Corporation committed patent infringement by examining the electronic passports of its passengers within the United States. Because the allegedly [**2] infringing acts were carried out "for the United States" under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), we affirm the district court's decision to dismiss IRIS's complaint.
IRIS owns U.S. Patent No. 6,111,506 (the '506 patent), titled "Method of Making an Improved Security Identification Document Including Contactless Communication Insert Unit." The '506 patent discloses methods for making a secure identification document containing an embedded computer chip that stores biographical or biometric data. '506 patent col. 20 ll. 11-64.
Japan Airlines Corporation (JAL) examines passports according to federal law, including the Enhanced Border Security Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1221 et seq., the Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, 19 C.F.R. § 122.75a(d), and certain international treaties. According to IRIS, some of these passports are made using the methods claimed in the '506 patent.
IRIS sued JAL for patent infringement in the Eastern District of New York, alleging that JAL infringed the '506 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) by "using . . . electronic passports in the processing and/or boarding of passengers . . . at . . . JAL services passenger check-in facilities throughout the United States." J.A. 74. [***1690] JAL moved to dismiss IRIS's suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Among other things, JAL argued that federal laws requiring the examination of [**3] passports conflict with the patent laws and therefore exempt JAL from infringement liability. It also argued that IRIS's exclusive remedy is an action against the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a).
The district court granted JAL's motion to dismiss, adopting only JAL's conflict-of-laws rationale. IRIS appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
769 F.3d 1359 *; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20142 **; 112 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1689 ***
IRIS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAPAN AIRLINES CORPORATION, Defendant, AND JAPAN AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, LTD., Defendant-Appellee.
Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in No. 06-CV-6336, Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon.
IRIS Corp. v. Japan Airlines Int'l Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91602 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2009)
infringing, passports, authorization, exclusive remedy, manufacture, passengers, improves, parties, patent, failure to state a claim, identification document, patent infringement, motion to dismiss, court's decision, district court, alleged use, federal law, technologies, electronic, fraudulent, detection, resources, Enhanced, benefits, encoding, Border, checks, seal
Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Business & Corporate Compliance, Patent Law, Ownership, Federal Government Inventions