Cormack v. United States

117 Fed. Cl. 392 (2014)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

On April 3, 2013, P filed his complaint in this court, alleging that the United States Postal Service (Postal Service) engaged in an unlicensed procurement and authorization of manufacture and use of patented inventions, a claim arising under 28 U.S.C. § 1498. In August 2010, P had been granted United States Patent No. 7,781,693 (693 Patent), entitled 'Method and System for Sorting Incoming Mail.' P alleges that the Postal Service infringed this patent when it contracted with D for the manufacture and delivery of Flats Sequencing Systems (FSS), a mail sorting device. P has requested that D produce documents in the apparent possession of Solystic, S.A.S. (Solystic), a wholly owned but indirect French subsidiary of D that designs and develops mail sorting systems and products. P contends the documents are relevant because D jointly developed the FSS machine with Solystic and incorporated components of Solystic's TOP 2000, an automated flat sorting machine that preceded the FSS, into the FSS. P argues that Solystic is familiar with his '693 patent because Solystic had to recognize and differentiate its work from the '693 patent to receive its own European method patent for sorting postal items. The requested information, he avers, is relevant to his infringement contentions. P seeks discovery into nonaccused products that fall within his definition of 'mail sorting product;' which, as specified, would include both FSS and non-FSS products. RCFC 26 provides that 'parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.' P seeks information related to the development and functionality of non-FSS mail sorting products because, 'To the extent that these products function in a manner that infringes the '693 Patent and were sold to the Government, P would be entitled to amend his complaint to add those products to this case.' P asserts that information related to 'non-FSS products that do not practice the method taught by the '693 Patent is useful to show the advantages and utility gained through the FSS's use of P's patented invention,' which is relevant for determining damages in the form of a reasonable royalty. P seeks detailed information related to the design, development, operation, and licensing of 'each and every Mail Sorting Product and Mail Sorting System.' D asserts that there is little or no relevance to the claims and defenses in this case.