Court refuses to dismiss US government night vision dispute

A federal judge has refused the US government’s request to dismiss claims that it used patented night vision technology without authorisation.

Senior Judge Eric Bruggink handed down his order denying dismissal of the lawsuit, which had been brought by the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), at the US Court of Federal Claims on Friday, January 19.

SAIC develops technologies used by the US Army, including night vision technologies in weapon systems.

The corporation owns multiple US patents in relation to its night vision goggle technology, including US numbers 7,787,012, 8,817,103, 9,229,230, and 9,618,752.

In June 2017, SAIC filed a complaint for patent infringement against the US government, alleging that it violated the four patents.

SAIC’s night vision system, named “Soldier Enhanced Rapid Engagement and Vision in Ambient Lighting” (SERVAL), reportedly reduces the risk of exposing soldiers to hostile forces and allows greater precision in weapon firing.

SAIC claimed that it was involved in confidential collaborations with existing government contractors to modify equipment to enable compatibility with SERVAL, and that the government was “intimately familiar” with the technologies.

The complaint alleges that in 2009, the US Army also issued two requests for information relating to SAIC’s technology. SAIC provided confidential insights and proprietary disclosure in response.

“Shortly before filing its first patent application, and several times thereafter, SAIC confidentially shared with the government details of its proprietary inventions,” said the complaint, adding that SAIC had informed the government that SAIC’s patent applications were pending.

SAIC said that it hoped to be awarded a government contract in relation to the SERVAL prototypes, but it was informed that no contracts concerning this technology would be issued “due to a lack of funding”.

The claim stated that the government went on to work with two SAIC competitors, BAE Systems and DRS Technologies, in developing and producing the infringing night vision goggle weapon systems.

SAIC requested compensation for the alleged infringement and costs.

The government hit back, claiming that SAIC’s patents are invalid as they describe abstract notions which are ineligible for patenting. In October last year, the government requested a dismissal.

Applying the two-stage test set out in Alice v CLS Bank, Bruggink rejected the motion to dismiss.

Bruggink found that SAIC’s patents are a combination of existing technology, sensors, and calculations, used in an “unconventional way” in order to produce “a solution to the problem of alignment and consistently accurate display”, and are not just an abstract idea.

Cooley is representing SAIC in the dispute.

Did you enjoy reading this story?  Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.