Securitypoint Holdings, Inc. v. United States

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 11-268C

(Originally filed: August 31, 2021)1

(Re-filed: October 22, 2021)

**********************

SECURITYPOINT HOLDINGS, INC.,

28 U.S.C. § 1498(a)

Plaintiff, (Jurisdiction Over Patent

Claims); Post-trial decision;

v. Infringement; Reasonable

and entire compensation;

THE UNITED STATES, Implied license; Running

royalty.

Defendant.

**********************

Bradley C. Graveline, Rebecca L. Mackin, Chicago, IL, with whom

was Laura M. Burson, Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff.

Gary L. Hausken, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil

Division, United States Department of Justice, Joseph L. Hunt, Assistant

Attorney General, Washington, DC, with whom were Conrad J. DeWitte, Jr.,

Lee Perla, Carrie E. Rosato, Brian N. Gross, and Shahar Harel, for

defendant.

OPINION

BRUGGINK, Judge.

This is an action for patent infringement brought under 28 U.S.C. §

1498 (a) against the United States, acting through the Transportation Security

Administration (“TSA”). SecurityPoint Holdings, Inc. (“SecurityPoint”) is

1

This opinion was originally issued under seal to afford the parties an

opportunity to propose redactions of any protected information. Because the

parties did not propose any redactions, the opinion appears in full below.

the plaintiff. It owns a method patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,888,460 (“the ‘460

patent”), which we held valid after a trial in 2016. The parties agreed to two

stipulations regarding infringement. Trial was then held in 2020 to establish

the extent of infringement and compensation owed. Following post-trial

briefing and argument, we conclude that, no later than January 1, 2008, TSA

universally adopted plaintiff’s patented method as its default means for

screening at all Category X and Category I airports and thereby, with certain

exceptions later adopted, infringed plaintiff’s patent. Plaintiff is owed a

royalty, plus interest, through the date of the judgment as compensation for

TSA’s unauthorized use of its method.

BACKGROUND

I. The Patent

The ‘460 patent concerns a system of recycling trays through security

screening checkpoints by use of movable carts. JX 1 (the ‘460 patent).2 The

‘460 patent’s priority date is July 3, 2002, which is when the inventor, Mr.

Joseph Ambrefe, first filed a provisional patent application at the U.S. Patent

and Trademark Office (“PTO”). As described in the patent, the purpose of

the ‘460 patent is to provide:

a cost effective way of providing security trays for a security

checkpoint while at the same time generating revenue from the

advertising that is contained thereon. Further, the present

system provides an efficient system for moving the trays for

use and removal after they are used. Security checkpoints are

both a time consuming and frustrating part of traveling for

frequent fliers and people on vacation alike. The present

invention provides a system of speeding up the process of

processing people through these checkpoints to decrease the

likelihood of delays for travelers. The present invention also

has the advantage of increasing passenger flow through

checkpoints and increasing traveler satisfaction due to the lack

of delays.

JX. 1 col. 6 ls. 10-24.

2

“JX” refers to admitted exhibits offered jointly by both parties. “PX” refers

to admitted exhibits offered by plaintiff. “DX” refers to admitted exhibits

from defendant.

2

During patent prosecution, the PTO examiner initially rejected the

application as obvious, but that rejection was overcome by the addition of

language to the first claim, which will be set forth below. The ‘460 patent

was issued on May 3, 2005.

The patent is comprised of one independent claim and 14 dependent

claims. Claim 1 is the independent claim and is exemplary of the method. It

discloses a method comprising:

a. positioning a first tray cart containing trays at the proximate

end of a scanning device through which objects may be passed,

wherein said scanning device comprises a proximate end and a

distal end,

b. removing a tray from said first tray cart,

c. passing said tray through said scanning device from said

proximate end through to said distal end,

d. providing a second tray cart at said distal end of said

scanning device,

e. receiving said tray passed through said scanning device in

said second tray cart, and

f. moving said second tray cart to said proximate end of said

scanning device so that said trays in said second cart

be passed through said scanning device at said proximate end.

JX 1 col. 11 ls. 58-59, col. 12 ls. 1-14.

The final step in the method of claim 1, “moving said tray cart to said

proximate end of said scanning device,” was added at the PTO to overcome

the examiner’s initial obviousness rejection. That final step differentiated

the claimed method from the combination of three prior art references which

disclosed a system to move and/or store trays in a security screening setting.

Claim 2 teaches that the scanning device is “selected from the group

consisting of a manual inspection station, an x-ray machine, a conveyor belt,

and a particulate matter sensor.” Id at col. 12 ls. 17-19. Claims 3 and 4 add

that the trays are “nestable” and have “exposed sides capable of displaying

advertising.” Id at ls. 21, 23-24. Claim 6 instructs that the “tray carts are

adapted to be rollable.” Id at ls. 28-29. Claim 7 adds that the method of

3

Claim 1 also includes “the step of repositioning said second tray cart from

said distal end to said proximate end.” Id at ls. 31-33. Claims 8 and 9 inform

that a plurality of the trays is “adapted to receive” various items such as a

laptop, camera, purse, coat, wallet, cell phone, and other similar items. Id. at

ls. 34-37, 40-41. Claim 12 adds a third cart to be used in the method described

in Claim 1. Id at ls. 48-49. Claim 13 inserts a step in which the third cart

“containing a plurality of trays” is substituted to replace the first cart. Id at

ls. 50-52. Claim 14 makes the bottoms of the trays adapted to display

advertising on the interior surface of the trays, and Claim 15 teaches that the

trays are adapted to display a tag number. Id. at ls. 53-54, 57.

II. Procedural History

Plaintiff commenced this action on May 2, 2011, alleging that the

United States, acting by and through the TSA, operates and controls security

screening at security checkpoints at more than four hundred airports

throughout the United Sates and utilizes carts, trays, and scanning devices at

these checkpoints in a manner that infringes one or more of the claims of the

‘460 patent at all or most of the airports under its control. After extensive

discovery and motion practice, the parties filed a joint status report agreeing

that the liability and damages phases of this case should be bifurcated.

Following the parties’ submission of their joint claim construction

statement, they asked the court to construe eight terms or phrases from claim

1 of the patent. We held a Markman hearing on November 14, 2012, after

which we construed the disputed terms as follows:

The Patent Term The Court’s Construction

tray a base with upwardly extending

walls

trays no construction

tray cart a movable cart capable of holding

one or more trays

proximate end proximal or nearest to; referring to

the end of the scanning device

where an object enters the device

distal end farthest from; referring to the end of

the scanning device where an object

exits the device

nestable capable of fitting compactly within

one another

adapted suited

4

receiving said tray passed through no construction

said scanning device in said second

tray cart

SecurityPoint Holdings, Inc. v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 1, 11 (2013).

On November 16, 2012 the parties executed a stipulation regarding

use of plaintiff’s patent at ten airports. ECF No. 45. The November 2012

stipulation was conditional:

If SecurityPoint establishes infringing use of the ‘460 patent by or for

the United States, . . . SecurityPoint shall be adjudged to have proved,

and the United States shall be adjudged liable for, such infringing use

. . . on a continuous basis at each and every passenger security

screening checkpoint used at each of the Airports from January 1,

2008 through the date of SecurityPoint’s judgment on the merits . . . .

Id. ¶ 7 (emphasis added).

On June 6, 2013 the parties executed a second stipulation. In it,

defendant conceded that it had infringed the ‘460 patent:

In accordance with the prior stipulation of the parties dated

November 16, 2012 (Docket No. 45), accepted by the Court on

November 28, 2012 (Docket No. 46) . . . the parties hereby

further stipulate . . . that SecurityPoint be adjudged to have

proved that each method described in and covered by claims 1,

2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the ‘460 Patent has

been used by the United States . . . pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1498(a).

ECF No. 71 ¶ 5 (emphasis added). In addition to admitting infringement, at

least to some degree, the June 2013 stipulation also defined infringing use of

the ‘460 patent as constituting:

performance of each step of each such claim . . . on a

continuous basis. . . where “continuous basis” is defined as

such use at least once per day that each checkpoint was open.

. . through the date of this Stipulation, and further as to each

such patent claim listed in this paragraph through the date of

any judgment ultimately obtained by SecurityPoint . . . .”

Id. ¶ 5 (emphasis added).

5

In short, defendant has admitted using the methods of claims 1, 2, 3,

4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the ‘460 patent, at least once per day, from

January 1, 2008, to the date on which judgment is entered at the same ten

U.S. airports that were the subject of the prior stipulation, namely, Fort

Lauderdale Hollywood International, Dallas/Fort Worth, Phoenix Sky

Harbor, Philadelphia International, Boston Logan, Washington Dulles,

Portland International, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County, Baltimore-

Washington International, and Ronald Reagan Washington National.

The issue of liability remained open, however. Defendant takes the

position that the stipulations merely concede some use, albeit continuously,

but not the extent of use, and only at ten airports. In addition, the government

raised a number of defenses, including anticipation and obviousness. The

latter two defenses were addressed by trial in 2015, following which we held

that the defendant did not meet its burden of proving that a person of ordinary

skill in the art would have combined the prior art references to teach the steps

of plaintiff’s independent claim 1.3 We thus affirmed the validity of the

patent. SecurityPoint Holdings, Inc. v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 25 (2016).

Thereafter, the case entered discovery with respect to the extent of

infringement and damages. During pretrial motion practice, plaintiff asked

the court to impose an adverse inference. In plaintiff’s view, the government

had failed to maintain records of TSA’s use of the ‘460 method, making it

impossible for plaintiff to prove the extent of the government’s use of the

patent. We found that it was premature to draw an adverse inference and

allowed additional time for discovery. During a hearing on November 1,

2017, we noted, however, that plaintiff was not expected to accept at face

value defendant’s argument that “we didn’t use your patent at these airports

for this period of time.” Tr. at 47:11-19 (Transcript from November 1, 2017

hearing, ECF No. 303).

On March 16, 2020, we granted in part defendant’s motion for

summary judgment regarding the existence of an implied license from

plaintiff to TSA for the use of the ‘460 method at those airports at which

plaintiff had an agreement with the airport operator permitting such use.

SecurityPoint Holdings, Inc. v. United States, 147 Fed. Cl. 499 (2020). We

left open, however, the question of the scope of those licenses in terms of the

relevant dates and number of lanes at the airports implicated by our finding

of an implied license. Id. at 503-04.

3

Defendant dropped anticipation as a defense prior to trial.

6

On July 10, 2020, defendant filed a motion in limine to preclude

plaintiff from offering evidence and argument at trial regarding the doctrine

of equivalents. On September 16, 2020, we granted defendant’s motion, but

only in so far as it concerned plaintiff’s case in chief: “If, however,

defendant’s expert, Mr. Tarakemeh’s, testimony is inconsistent with the

court’s prior ruling regarding claim construction, then plaintiff’s expert, Dr.

Jacobson, will be allowed to testify on rebuttal to what is stated in his report

regarding the doctrine of equivalents.” ECF No. 538 at ¶ 1.

III. Trial

From October 5, 2020 through October 21, 2020, trial was held on the

issues of the extent of infringement at Cat X and Cat I airports4 and damages.

Plaintiff presented ten witnesses, six of whom testified as experts. Defendant

presented five witnesses in its case in chief and one rebuttal witness. Three

of defendant’s witnesses testified as experts. We list the witnesses below

and give a brief summary of their testimony, while discussing the particulars

of their testimony in more detail later.

Following post-trial briefing, closing argument was heard on April 23,

2021. The parties thereafter filed supplemental briefs related to a study

conducted by the government’s expert, Mr. Amon Tarakemeh, as well as

their respective positions on delay damages.

A. Plaintiff’s Fact Witnesses

1. Mr. Joseph Ambrefe

Mr. Ambrefe is the inventor of the ‘460 patent and the founder and

CEO of SecurityPoint. He testified about the origins of SecurityPoint and

his business plan to sell his patented method to airports and the TSA, which

in some respects had its genesis in the fallout from the attack on the World

Trade Center Towers in New York in 2001. He also testified about the

success of the ‘460 method in early tests and the patent’s eventual

commercial success after the patented method was adopted for use in

airports.

4

Category X and I are the two largest classifications of commercial airports

in the United States. Airports are classified by TSA primarily according to

the volume of passenger traffic. Category X is the largest. Plaintiff

maintains a claim with respect to the other smaller airports. The parties

agreed to limit this trial to the two largest categories.

7

2. Mr. Douglas Linehan

Mr. Linehan is the Vice President of Operations at SecurityPoint. He

testified about efforts to market the method to airports and TSA and the initial

success in commercializing the ‘460 method. He also testified about

plaintiff’s negotiations with TSA, airport operators, and advertising brokers.

3. Mr. Scot Thaxton

Mr. Thaxton is TSA’s Deputy Federal Security Director (“FSD”) for

the state of Arizona. He has seventeen years of experience working for the

agency. His responsibilities within the State of Arizona are related to

security screening checkpoints, including oversight of 1,500 employees at

nine commercial airports in Arizona. He was also called to testify by

defendant with respect to the one-cart method, an alternative system to the

‘460 patent that he developed for returning bins at security screening

checkpoints. Plaintiff offered Mr. Thaxton to testify about Federal Aviation

Administration (“FAA”) and TSA airport design and planning guides,

specifically the nature, scope, and timing of efforts to standardize and

optimize the use of tray carts at airport security screening checkpoints.

4. Ms. Lisa Smithson

Ms. Smithson is a certified public accountant and SecurityPoint’s

chief financial officer. She testified concerning SecurityPoint’s financial

records.

B. Plaintiff’s Expert Witnesses

1. Mr. Marcus Arroyo

Mr. Arroyo testified in the most recent trial as well as during the

validity trial. He served as the FSD at Newark International Airport from

2001 to 2006. Among other things, Mr. Arroyo was asked to provide expert

opinion and testimony regarding the condition of security checkpoints at

airports before and after 9/11.

Prior to his time at Newark airport, Mr. Arroyo worked for the FAA,

starting in 1986 as a special agent, and later as a security specialist and

federal air marshal coordinator from September to December of 1986. In

8

January 1987, he was promoted to the interim attorney branch manager,

Eastern Region, Eastern Division. In 1993, Mr. Arroyo was promoted to

Assistant Manager for FAA security for the entire region, as well as Assistant

Manager in Brussels, Belgium. There, he was responsible for Europe, the

Middle East, and Africa from 1993 to 1995. He then returned to the Eastern

Region in 1995 and resumed his position as the division manager of security

for the Eastern Region until July 2002.

After leaving TSA in 2002, Mr. Arroyo did consulting work for

Aerospace International. While there, he advised on projects such as the

construction of a new airport in the United Arab Emirates. As a result of his

education, work experience and training, he developed a “comprehensive

understanding of the operation of security screening checkpoints.” Tr.

677:22-678:1. At trial, he testified as an expert with respect to airport security

screening checkpoints. He also testified concerning TSA checkpoint design

guides and how they are incorporated into the layout of airport security

designs.

2. Mr. Erik Bottema

Mr. Bottema is the vice president of sales and business development

at Adkom, a media company. Mr. Bottema has worked in aviation media

and airport advertising. He was responsible for sales and account

management related to in-airport advertising for airport media

concessionaires JCDecaux and Clear Channel. Currently, he is responsible

for media generation and media sales at Adkom. He testified as an aviation

media-airport advertising expert concerning the value of SecurityPoint’s plan

to market its patented process to advertisers.

3. Dr. Sheldon Jacobson

Dr. Jacobson has been a professor of computer science and industrial

engineering in the Department of Statistics at the University of Illinois since

2002. He began work on aviation security issues in 1995, working with the

FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security. His research on multi-level aviation

security passenger screening at airports helped in the design and

implementation of TSA’s PreCheck system. Dr. Jacobson has published in

the field of aviation security, and the court found him to be a person of

ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) with regard to the ‘460 patent.

Dr. Jacobson testified as an expert on the extent of use of the patented

method by defendant at checkpoint lanes in Category X (“Cat X”) and

9

Category I (“Cat I”) airports, the value of passenger time savings, TSA’s

executed stipulations of infringement, admissions by TSA employees, TSA

Checkpoint Design Guides, and how the ‘460 patent enhances security,

safety, and efficiency.

4. Mr. Timothy Hollifield

Mr. Hollifield is a manufacturing and mechanical engineer who was

involved in security checkpoint operations at the National Safe Skies

Alliance (“NSSA”) in Knoxville, Tennessee from 2001 to 2011. He testified

regarding the testing conducted by the NSSA for TSA of security screening

checkpoint operations after September 11, 2001, the live testing of the ‘460

method at the McGhee Tyson Airport in Knoxville, and increased efficiency

and security at checkpoints brought about by use of plaintiff’s patent.

5. Mr. Mark Hosfield

Mr. Hosfield testified concerning the economic indicators that would

be relevant to negotiations with the U.S. government for a license to the ‘460

patent. Mr. Hosfield is the owner of Davis & Hosfield Consulting LLC and

has his bachelor's degree from the University of Illinois and an MBA from

Northwestern. He has 37 years of experience analyzing damages. He

testified as an expert in forensic accounting as it relates to economic

indicators of patent damages. He testified concerning cost savings resulting

from fewer transportation security officer (“TSO”) injuries and from

employing fewer TSOs and the effective royalty rate of the Adason

agreement.5 He also testified about the economic indicators that would be

relevant to a hypothetical negotiation with the U.S. government for a license

to the ‘460 patent.

6. Mr. James Malackowski

Mr. Malackowski is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of

Ocean Tomo, LLC, an investment banking firm which provides services

related to intellectual property, including financial expert testimony,

valuation, and patent analytics. He has worked extensively in the area of

assessing damages for use of intellectual property. Mr. Malackowski is a

certified public accounting, certified licensing professional, and inventor of

20 patents. He testified as an intellectual property damages expert.

5

The Adason agreement settled litigation between SecurityPoint and the

Adason Group concerning, inter alia, Adason’s infringement of the patent.

10

C. Defendant’s Fact Witnesses

1. Mr. Scot Thaxton

Mr. Thaxton testified regarding TSA security screening checkpoint

operations in Arizona and the use of a bin return system that he developed as

an alternative to plaintiff’s method, which defendant refers to as the “One-

Cart Method,” and which plaintiff refers to as the “moveable pallet cart”

(“MPC”). Mr. Thaxton testified about the components of the MPC, namely

the dolly cart (a hand truck) and small pallets, as well as how it operated. He

also testified about TSA’s Bin Advertising Program as well as the use of

TSA’s Checkpoint Design Guides (“CDGs”).6

2. Mr. Dale Mason

Mr. Mason is a program analyst with the Operational Improvements

Branch of TSA. In 2002, Mr. Mason held a number of positions at TSA

before being promoted to TSA Headquarters, where he is in charge of

drafting and maintaining CDGs. He testified about the CDGs and their

intended use.

3. Mr. Joseph T. Ambrefe

Mr. Ambrefe provided testimony as an adverse witness regarding

SecurityPoint’s accounting practices and economic business records, the

Safe Skies demonstration and report, the Knoxville airport demonstration,

and Mr. Ambrefe’s visit to Denver International Airport in August 2019.

D. Defendant’s Expert Witnesses

1. Mr. Amon Tarakemeh

Mr. Tarakemeh is an operations research analyst with a bachelor’s

degree in systems engineering and a master’s degree in operations research.

Mr. Tarakemeh testified regarding his background and work at the Science

Applications International Corporation (“SAIC”). At SAIC, Mr. Tarakemeh

tests procedures and equipment used at airport security checkpoints and

baggage areas to ensure that they meet safety requirements. As part of Mr.

6

The parties’ positions with respect to whether the MPC or One Cart Pallet

method is infringing is implicit in the two different names. We use plaintiff’s

term simply for ease of reference without addressing here the legal questions

related to infringement.

11

Tarakemeh’s employment at SAIC, he works on contracts for TSA. He

testified as an expert in operations research analysis and the use of the tray

and cart method at security checkpoints.

The government engaged Mr. Tarakemeh to develop a study that

estimated non-usage of the ‘460 method at airport checkpoints. Mr.

Tarakemeh testified that during the study he visited 36 airports during an

eight-month period in 2018 and 2019 for the purpose of determining the

frequency with which checkpoint operations infringed the ‘460 patent. He

also testified about data he collected related to the movement of passenger

and non-passenger items at checkpoints. Mr. Tarakemeh concluded that

plaintiff’s patented method was only used sporadically.

2. Dr. Arnold Irvin Barnett

Dr. Barnett testified as an expert in applied mathematics, including

applied probability and statistics. Dr. Barnett is a professor of Management

Science and Statistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”).

He has a degree in physics from Columbia University, a Ph.D. in

mathematics from MIT, and he has taught probability and statistics at MIT

for over 40 years. He testified regarding inferences that can be drawn

regarding the extent of use of the ‘460 patent based upon survey data and

observations of security screening checkpoints by defendant’s expert, Mr.

Tarakemeh.

3. Mr. Daniel McGavock

Mr. McGavock has a Bachelor of Science degree in accounting from

Indiana University and currently serves as the Vice President of Charles

River Associates, a consulting firm. He is the firm’s Intellectual Property

Practice leader. He is an expert in accounting and in the valuation and

licensing of intellectual property. Mr. McGavock testified as to the

compensation due to SecurityPoint and responded to plaintiff’s damages

experts.7

7

Two days into trial, defendant sought to introduce Mr. McGavock’s

supplemental report, which presented a new damages theory. In response,

plaintiff filed a motion to strike (ECF No. 554) those portions of Mr.

McGavock’s supplemental report which concerned the new damages theory.

Acknowledging plaintiff’s motion to strike, on October 20, 2020, defendant

moved to admit Mr. McGavock’s supplemental expert report “minus

paragraphs 8 and 9, figures 2 and 3, and the corresponding schedules which

were the subject of Plaintiff's motion to strike.” Tr. 2833:13-2834:11. We

12

IV. Fact Findings

A. Security Screening at Airports Prior to Implementation of

Plaintiff’s Patented Method

Prior to September 2001, security screening of airline passengers was

beset by inefficiencies and complaints from passengers about long waits at

security checkpoints. Mr. Arroyo explained that trays were generally used

to hold passengers’ belongings during screening, but the lack of

standardization of equipment and hand carrying of trays back and forth led

to the frequent mismanagement of passenger property, clutter, and

disorganization. After the attacks of September 2001, the problem became

more acute as security became a greater concern. Adding space to address

the clutter was not an option at many airports.

There were also operational concerns at checkpoints. After 9/11, Mr.

Arroyo recalled: “divestiture requirements [at screening checkpoints] were

incrementally ratcheted up to where people were having to take off their

shoes, their belts. It was quite invasive . . . [which] created more of a

workload for the screeners.” Tr. 692:25-693:1-4. Mr. Arroyo explained that,

“It got so chaotic–I can speak for Newark personally because I witnessed it

and experienced it and received many of the complaints–where the queueing

lines were so backed up that they congested the concession stands, the entire

operation.” Tr. 693:17-21. “So, it was really chaotic situation that we had

to address immediately.” Tr. 694:1-2

When asked his opinion of the state of security screening prior to the

implementation of plaintiff’s method, Mr. Arroyo testified that checkpoints

were:

chaotic because of trays and all of the divestiture requirements,

but primarily because of the trays were–were just in a

disorganized fashion. They were all over the screening

checkpoint, creating a lot of tripping hazards, creating a lot of

commotion. They were not readily available for the passengers

to use the trays to start the divestiture process, which slowed

down the screening checkpoint operation, caused frustration

for the screeners . . . caused a lot of anxiety for the passengers

. . . which ultimately bogged down the entire system . . . .”

agreed to strike the portions of Mr. McGavock’s supplemental report

concerning his newly introduced damages theory and DX 1814 was admitted

into evidence, as amended.

13

Tr. 690:17-691:8.

The solution was to implement a “process to have some sort of

standardization to meet the expectations of an efficient and steady flow of

bags and passengers through the screening checkpoint.” Tr. 696:22-24.

(Arroyo). Mr. Arroyo was asked at trial, “[d]id TSA do anything to . . .

develop a system to organize trays and move them from the sterile to the non-

sterile side . . . in the time period of–when you first joined TSA [2002]” up

to the time you left? Tr. 700:18-23. He responded that TSA executed a

phased approach and “started to roll out the employment” of screeners,

terminal by terminal at Newark. Tr. 700:24-701:1. Despite TSA’s phased-

approach and “evolving process,” TSA did not have a “uniform system in

place at any point prior to September 1, 2005 [for managing checkpoints].”

Tr. 708:4-6. The lack of uniformity in turn created safety problems “[f]or

the traveling public, when you have trays in a congested area, it creates a

tripping hazard . . . . You have a big crowd trying to get through this funnel,

and anything that could obscure or block the movement is a safety hazard.”

Tr. 709:4-12. TSA expert Gloria Bender also confirmed TSA’s failed efforts

to develop a solution. During the validity trial, Ms. Bender testified that her

company attempted to remedy the checkpoint efficiency problems, but

ultimately did not succeed. Validity Tr. 1037:16-1038:8.

As a frequent business traveler, Mr. Ambrefe recognized the need for

a uniform system to manage checkpoints. He observed the differences in

security checkpoint layouts from airport to airport, the crowds, delays, long

lines and increasing problems after September 2001. He concluded that what

was needed was greater efficiency and standardization of the screening

process. In 2002, Mr. Ambrefe sketched out what he believed would be a

solution to the problem through the use of standardized trays and carts and

recycling of trays by using carts to move trays from the non-sterile to the

sterile side of checkpoints. He then sought legal advice and filed a patent

application for his invention on July 2, 2003. On May 3, 2005, the ‘460

patent issued.

Mr. Ambrefe formed SecurityPoint as a corporate means to exploit

the patent and what he viewed to be its potential as a means of introducing

advertising into the screening process. That same year he offered an

unsolicited proposal to TSA to provide the SecurityPoint method along with

standardized trays and carts for security screening in exchange for the

exclusive right to sell advertising on those trays at all 429 federalized

14

airports. TSA would receive the method and equipment at no cost to the

government.8

TSA was skeptical, however, about introducing new equipment into

security checkpoints out of concern that it would increase congestion and

negatively impact passenger throughput. SecurityPoint nevertheless

persisted in marketing its method to TSA, and in 2005, when plaintiff’s

patent had been issued, TSA agreed to permit a test of the ‘460 method at its

Safe Skies testing facility in Knoxville, Tennessee. The results of the test

were sufficiently favorable that TSA implemented the ‘460 method at the

McGhee Tyson Airport in Knoxville as part of a pilot program. The pilot

program also proved successful. Thereafter, TSA implemented the ‘460

method at Los Angeles International Airport (“LAX”) in another pilot

program.9

The evidence of the ‘460’s success was highlighted in a TSA

Information Bulletin, dated December 22, 2006, citing an 80 percent increase

in screening efficiency and a 90 percent reduction in injuries after

implementing SecurityPoint’s trays and carts method during a three-month

pilot program at LAX. See PX 84. Those figures were again recited in a

TSA publication several days later. See PX 202 at 3 (TSA Public Affairs

Guidance, December 28, 2006). Further, in a 2007 press release, a TSA

Spokesperson, Mr. Nico Melendez, acknowledged that “the free trays, carts

and tables did help TSA officers work more efficiently. . . . [and] [t]hey

suffered fewer . . . injuries.” PX 1126 (News article from TampaBay.com).

8

On October 14, 2020, plaintiff moved for judicial notice (ECF No. 555) of:

(1) its assertion that TSA has had the authority since at least May 3, 2005

(issuance of U.S. Patent No. 6,888,460) to grant SecurityPoint sole access to

all category X and I airport checkpoints to implement its patented method;

and (2) its assertion that TSA has had the authority since the issuance of the

‘460 patent to charge a fee to recoup costs for security related expenses,

including costs related to acquiring patented technology via a license.

Plaintiff’s motion is denied as not the proper subject for judicial notice.

9

On June 30, 2006, TSA and SecurityPoint entered into a Memorandum of

Agreement (“MOA”), in which plaintiff was to provide TSA equipment

(such as tables, bin carriers, and bins) at LAX “in order to assist TSA in

providing more efficient and effective security screening operations at

LAX.” PX 1583 ¶ 3. (TSA/SecurityPoint MOA, dated June 30, 2006).

15

B. Events Leading to the Lawsuit

Because of the success of the two pilot programs, SecurityPoint was

expecting TSA to approve its proposal. TSA, however, maintained its

rejection of SecurityPoint’s original offer. Nevertheless, the government

began using the ‘460 method at airports nationwide, starting on September

1, 2005, at Washington Dulles International Airport (“IAD”), while using its

own equipment. It did not execute a contract with plaintiff.

Seventeen months later, in January of 2007, TSA hosted an Industry

Day event at which TSA solicited proposals from prospective vendors to

furnish equipment, trays, and carts to TSA at security checkpoints. TSA’s

pilot program presentation proposed the following arrangement:

1) Vendors seeking airport advertisement opportunities will

contact Airport Operators corresponding to the locations at

which they wish to advertise;

2) Vendors then enter into an agreement with the Airport

Operator;

3) The Airport Operator submits a proposal to TSA prior to the

date designated by the Contracting Officer;

4) TSA evaluates all proposals received by the designated date;

and

5) An MOA is executed between the TSA and the Airport

Operator

PX 1578 (TSA Bin Advertising presentation, January 11, 2007). TSA

specified the technical criteria for the equipment to be furnished, such as the

required dimensions and materials for the bins, carts, and divestiture tables.

Having exhausted its efforts to market its method on an exclusive

basis to TSA, SecurityPoint elected to compete with other vendors in TSA’s

solicitation. Eventually, SecurityPoint entered into separate agreements or

memoranda of understanding (“MOUs”) with airport operators for the right

to place advertising on the trays, usually in exchange for a portion of that

revenue.10

10

PX 1415 (Advertising contract chart prepared by Mr. Ambrefe listing the

airports with which SecurityPoint contracted to provide trays and carts).

16

One of the other companies that submitted a successful bid to an

airport operator in response to TSA’s proposal process was the Adason

Group, LLC. Adason won a contract to provide carts and trays to TSA at

five airports in exchange for advertising access. In March of 2007,

SecurityPoint sued Adason for infringement of the ‘460 patent. The suit

resulted in a settlement in favor of SecurityPoint, with Adason paying a lump

sum of $650,000. Because Adason eventually went bankrupt, plaintiff only

received roughly $300,000. The suit underscored the difficulties

SecurityPoint faced in competing against other companies that were offering

what it alleged was its own invention.

Ultimately, plaintiff brought suit against the government in 2011,

alleging that, beginning in 2005, TSA utilized carts, trays, and scanning

devices at airport checkpoints in a manner that infringed the ‘460 patent.

That lead to more roadblocks in SecurityPoint’s efforts to market the ‘460

method to other airport operators because TSA changed its MOU with airport

operators in 2012 to require indemnification in the event of patent

infringement, making it less appealing for airports to enter into agreements

with SecurityPoint. Mr. Linehan testified that TSA’s change to its MOUs

was the “poison pill that stopped airports from signing up with us.” Tr.

489:13-14.

C. Plaintiff’s Proof of the Extent of Infringement

Plaintiff relies on four types of evidence to establish the extent of

infringement: the parties’ stipulations regarding infringement; TSA’s use of

Design Guides, which control the setup of security checkpoints; admissions

by TSA employees; and expert testimony.

1. Stipulations of Infringement

While the parties disagree about the effect of the stipulations, the

disagreement is ultimately immaterial. Plaintiff is correct that the

stipulations establish use of the ‘460 patent on a continuous basis at each of

the ten initial airports, beginning in January 2008 and continuing to the date

of judgment. Given the improbability that TSA would set up different

methods at the same airports for handling security screening, we find this

concession highly relevant. Defendant is correct, however, that “continuous

basis” merely means “at least once per day,” as stated in the June 2013

stipulation. Defendant also cites to language from a 2011 discovery

scheduling order issued during the liability phase of this action in which the

court recognized that defendant did “not concede that the allegedly infringing

17

activities conducted at these airports are representative to establish

infringement at the nation’s other airports or to calculate damages.” ECF

No. 14 ¶ 2.

“At least once per day” thus merely provides a starting point for

plaintiff’s obligation to prove the extent of use of the ‘460 patent.

Nevertheless, when viewed in light of the inherent difficulties plaintiff had

in proving use, we treat defendant’s concession as allowing the court to

assume that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, “once a day” was not

an unusual occurrence. I.e., that the stipulations point to a regular practice.

2. TSA’s Design Guides

TSA is responsible for control of the design of airport security

checkpoints. It therefore periodically issues or updates Checkpoint Design

Guides (“CDGs”) which direct the configuration of airport security lanes at

all Cat X and Cat I airports. Plaintiff contends that these guides, which

airport designers are required to use in laying out security screening

checkpoints, are proof that use of plaintiff’s patent is built into the very

structure of virtually all screening lanes.

Mr. Arroyo had experience with the use of CDGs in the layout of

airport security checkpoints and relied on CDGs when he worked for TSA

because they “laid out the principal parts of a screening checkpoint.” Tr.

711:12-13. CDGs specify checkpoint operations, as well as optimized

checkpoint configurations.

Mr. Dale Mason, a program analyst with the Operational

Improvements Branch of TSA, testified that, “The primary functions of the

[design] guides are basically for airport architects and program managers to

have some guidance on when they’re building a new checkpoint and for our

system integrators to have some guidance if we are integrating new

equipment into the security checkpoint.” Tr. 2265:25-2266:5. When asked

if CDGs are the “bible” for reconfiguration and construction of processes at

Security Screening Checkpoints (“SSCPs”), Mr. Mason replied, “yes.” Tr.

2261:24-2262:1. He also confirmed that compliance with the CDG is

mandatory.

TSA published new design guides in 2009, 2014, 2016 and 2020. The

following diagram from the 2014 CDG is illustrative:

18

PX 1543 at 6. Notably, the 2009, 2014, and 2016 CDG’s all contain the

same figure depicted above of a security screening checkpoint with trays and

carts at the proximate and distal ends of lanes. The 2020 CDG also depicts

a similar checkpoint configuration with trays and carts at the proximate and

distal ends of lanes.

Plaintiff provided a chart comparing claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12,

13, 14, and 15 of the ‘460 patent to language in the guides, which we find a

fair use of both. An excerpt from the chart highlighting claim 1 appears in

plaintiff’s post-trial brief:

Claim 1 Design Guides

A method comprising:

positioning a first tray cart “A fully loaded bin cart should be

containing trays at the proximate located at the start of the divest

end of a scanning device through tables on the non-sterile side of the

which objects may be passed, lane awaiting passenger pick up.”

wherein said scanning device (See PX 159 at 26; see also PX 1543

comprises a proximate end and a at 24; see also PX 1173 at 36)

distal end, “Bin carts are similar to a hand cart

or dolly to transport a large number

of bins without requiring excessive

19

lifting or carrying by a TSA agent

from the X-ray extension rollers on

the sterile side of the lane to the

divest tables on the non-sterile side

of the lane.” (Id.)

“Each lane requires at least two bin

carts per lane and TSA recommends

maintaining about 60 bins per lane.”

(Id.)

Carry-on bag screening “can be

accomplished by three different

types of x-ray equipment …” (Id.)

Carry-on bag screening includes a

“[s]canning [b]elt.” (Id.)

removing a tray from said first tray “Bins are the gray containers at the

cart, front of the checkpoint lane used for

divesting of passenger personal

belongings such as purses, carry-on

bags, backpacks, laptops, shoes,

coats/jackets, etc.” (Id.)

passing said tray through said “Feed the passenger bins to the

scanning device from said scanning belt at the infeed tunnel.”

proximate end through to said distal (Id.)

end,

providing a second tray cart at said “The other bin cart should be

distal end of said scanning device, positioned at the end of the roller

tables on the sterile side so that the

TSA agent can collect empty bins

after passengers have picked up

their belongings.” (Id.)

receiving said tray passed through “The other bin cart should be

said scanning device in said second positioned at the end of the roller

tray cart, and tables on the sterile side so that the

TSA agent can collect empty bins

after passengers have picked up

their belongings.” (Id.)

moving said second cart to said “TSA recommends that bin carts are

proximate end of said scanning pushed upstream against passenger

device so that said trays in said

20

second cart be passed through said flow through an ADA gate by a

scanning device at said proximate TSO.” (Id.)

end “In the past, bin cart [sic] transport

by TSOs was a primary cause of on-

the-job injuries. Hand-carrying of

bins is no longer endorsed by TSA.”

(Id.)

Pl.’s Post-Trial Br. at 14-15.

Dr. Jacobson analyzed the claim limitations of the ‘460 patent in view

of the language found in the CDGs and concluded that every limitation in

claim 1 was met. Similarly, Dr. Jacobson compared the dependent claims of

the ‘460 patent with the design guides and came to the same conclusion that

each limitation of the ‘460 patent was met by the language in the design

guides.

The 2009 CDG (PX 159) was the first guide to depict trays and carts

in a diagram of a checkpoint.11 Dr. Jacobson “went to the [‘460’s] patent

description to see how the information was in line with it” and concluded that

TSA’s 2009 CDG (PX 159 at 77, Security Checkpoint Diagram) and the ‘460

patent “were exactly in line.”12 Tr. 993:15-23. He explained that the only

method the CDGs provided for moving trays from the sterile side to the non-

sterile side of checkpoints was by tray cart, as called for in the ‘460 patent.

11

The 2006 guide (PX 158) did not include a diagram, but instead referenced

a tray return system and stated that TSA was considering different options

for processing trays: “At this time, there is no single TSA standard bin return

system to eliminate the need for TSOs to lift and carry bins; two possible

systems which can be considered are a roller/slide system and a non-metallic

bin cart system.” PX 158 at 16 (TSA’s 2006 CDG). From this, Dr. Jacobson

inferred that TSA was debating which type of tray management systems to

employ in 2006.

12

In describing instructions in the 2009 CDG regarding how bin carts should

be used, Dr. Jacobson testified, “In particular, it recommends the bin carts

are pushed upstream. On gates, passengers flow through the ADA gate by a

TSO. So it shows also the flow of the bin carts and it also explicitly says that

there should be at least two bin carts per lane.” Tr. 993:9-14. Dr. Jacobson

identified where trays and bin carts were located in TSA’s 2009 CDG

showing an optimized security screening checkpoint that was consistent with

the ‘460 patent.

21

He also testified that he was unable to find any deviation permitted from the

trays and carts method in the design guides. Dr. Jacobson’s review of the

2020 CDG showed that the placement of tray carts was the same as shown

in the previous design guides diagrams. Thus, in Dr. Jacobson’s view, the

CDGs called for infringement of the ‘460 patent.

In post-trial briefing, defendant argues that the CDGs say nothing

about the last step of the patent, namely, moving said second cart to the

proximate end. We disagree. The CDG guidelines state that, “TSA

recommends that the bin cart be pushed upstream through the ADA or access

gate. Upstream is bringing [a bin cart] back out to the non-sterile area at the

beginning of the screening checkpoint process.” Tr. 833:5-8. The 2009

design guide is illustrative:

In the past, bin cart transport by TSOs was a primary cause of

on-the-job injuries. Hand-carrying of bins is no longer

endorsed by TSA. TSA recommends that bin carts are pushed

upstream against passenger flow through an ADA gate by a

TSO.

PX 159 at 26 (TSA’s 2009 CDG); see also PX 1173 at 36 (TSA’s 2016

CDG); PX 1543 at 24 (TSA’s 2014 CDG). As Mr. Arroyo explained, there

is no option other than

to bring [a bin cart] back to the proximate end of the screening

checkpoint. You are not going to leave it in the metal detector

or in the ADA lane. You have to push it all the way upstream

to bring it out to the proximate end of the nonsterile area, where

the trays will be available and accessible to passengers.

Tr. 833:24-834:5.

A logical inference is that the reason the carts are “pushed upstream”

is to return the trays to the proximate end of the scanner, thus accomplishing

the last step of Claim 1. We find that the CDGs teach all the steps of the

‘460 method.

The question remains whether the CDGs actually controlled security

lanes at airports. Mr. Arroyo testified that approval from headquarters was

necessary to deviate from the configurations published in the CDGs:

“[W]hatever we proposed I would submit to headquarters to get approval so

that . . . we could move forward with it.” Tr. 712:13-15. When asked if a

FSD has the discretion to move ancillary equipment, Mr. Mason replied,

22

“No.” Tr. 2296:7. Mr. Mason also testified that he was familiar with TSA’s

2020 guide, confirming TSA employees did not have discretion to vary the

layout of checkpoints. Mr. Mason testified that the only method the CDGs

portrayed for moving trays from the sterile side to the non-sterile side of

checkpoints was by tray cart.13

Dr. Jacobson explained that the Checkpoint Design Guides:

gave me the standardized optimized security checkpoint

configuration . . . [and] made it very clear that if there were any

deviations from this optimized security checkpoint

configuration, it would require . . . [an] approval process,

through the TSA headquarters . . . So there was a process put

in place for deviations from the design guide.

Tr. 988:10-15, 18-19.14

In response, defendant argues that “the guides do not govern

operation of the Checkpoints; local TSAs can and do deviate from the

arrangements disclosed in the Guides during operation.” Def. Post-Trial Br.

at 43 (emphasis supplied). Citing TSA’s 2001 CDG, defendant asserts the

CDGs merely are for “planning and design of new or expanded airport

facilities.” PX 1546 at i. Defendant further argues that, once operational,

13

Mr. Mason replied “no” when asked, “in the course of redesigning a

checkpoint, if a local TSA wants to move ancillary equipment, would they

need to seek TSA approval or headquarters approval?” Tr. 2302:3-7. He

also testified, however, that local TSA personnel do not have discretion to

change the layouts called for by the design guides; we assume that discretion

was limited to accommodating the default design to minor obstructions.

14

The government moved to exclude Dr. Jacobson’s testimony as it relates

to the CDGs because he was never employed by TSA and had no prior

knowledge of the CDGs before working on this case. We reserved ruling

until after trial. We accepted Dr. Jacobson as an expert and a person of

ordinary skill in the art with regard to the ‘460 patent based on his extensive

experience on aviation security matters. His work with the FAA, research

and writing of 188 published articles on aviation security, as well as his work

in airport baggage screening, which led to the establishment of TSA

precheck, demonstrates his generalized knowledge and skill in the field of

airport security operations. We find that Dr. Jacobson was qualified to opine

on how the instructions for checkpoint design in the CDGs read on the claims

of the patent.

23

airport checkpoints do not necessarily display all elements of a checkpoint

as depicted in the CDGs. It cites Mr. Mason’s testimony:

[T]here’s 440 airports out there, 2200 and something lanes. If

I had an optimal space and the airport said, Dale, what do you

need to make this perfect, I would say do that, but because we

are often . . . retrofitting checkpoints, we have to deal with

column issues, expansion joints, ceiling heights . . . So we have

to make sure that we adjust the hard equipment and the

ancillary equipment to fit . . . and we do our best with the space

that we're provided . . . .

Tr. 2273: 2-12.

At no point did defendant’s witnesses explain how column issues,

ceiling heights, and expansion joints materially affected the design

templates’ function as the default design. Although defendant hints that the

preferred checkpoint configurations might not always be used, it offered not

a single example in which a non-complying design was used; no evidence

was offered of instances in which equipment was relocated in a way that the

patent would not be infringed. We are persuaded that, if there were

deviations in practice, they amount to minor tweaks of the location of trays

or carts, not deviations from the use of the patented method. We find that

the CDGs are strong proof of comprehensive use of the ‘460 patent at all Cat

X and Cat I airports.

3. Admissions by TSA Employees

Plaintiff also relies on statements from TSA employees and one

defense expert to confirm comprehensive use of its patent.15 Scot Thaxton,

Deputy FSD for Arizona, has seventeen years of experience working for

TSA. He testified that, after the LAX test in 2006, TSA headquarters agreed

to allow FSDs from individual airports to use the ‘460 method under a

Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”): “headquarters made the decision

at that point that if other [airport] locations wanted to advance it under the

MOU, it would be up to the FS[D].” Tr. 532:11-13. He also affirmed that

he personally recommended that TSA headquarters use SecurityPoint’s

method. Mr. Thaxton also testified about why he supported using the ‘460

15

The expert statement relied on was from Mr. McGavock. We agree with

defendant, however, that plaintiff took the statement out of context. It was

merely an assumption made for purposes of valuing the hypothetical license

and not an independent opinion on infringement.

24

method. “My recommendation . . . I saw Doug and Joe as small business

owners advancing, they could reduce the cost for the taxpayers of not having

to buy tables and carts and replenish bins, and I thought it was viable.” Tr.

533:2-7.

Plaintiff also cites Ben Sears’ deposition, accepted in lieu of live

testimony at trial. Mr. Sears is a TSA program manager with TSA’s

Innovative Task Force, where he manages demonstrations of new

technologies. Mr. Sears testified as a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent that he was

unaware of a single Cat X or Cat I airport that did not infringe the ‘460’s

claimed methods. Mr. Sears stated that TSA continued to use the ‘460

method at the conclusion of the LAX pilot program. While defendant

attempts to minimize the import of his testimony by suggesting that it was

beyond the scope of his Rule 30(b)(6) designation, we disagree. He was

testifying as to his knowledge of facts, and those facts related to his proffered

area of testimony—the benefits conferred on TSA by use of the carts and

trays methodology.

Plaintiff also relies on a TSA slide presentation produced by its

Arizona’s senior leadership. In it, Ms. Sulynn Shepherd, a TSA Safety and

Occupational Health Specialist in Arizona, explains why Phoenix Sky

Harbor Airport was implementing a new system for managing trays and carts

at security screening checkpoint and how the new system would work. PX

1554 at 00:34-00:40 (TSA slide presentation titled “Phoenix Sky Harbor

Hand Truck with Mini Pallet,” dated April 16, 2018). Ms. Shepherd states:

The change is going to be the process and the vehicle in which

bins are replenished to the passenger divestment area. The

question may be asked ‘why are we changing this process?’

Currently, TSA is infringing on a utility patent. We will

institute a new process that assures we will no longer infringe

on that patent. Phoenix senior leadership volunteered to lead

the field to help break the infringement.

PX 1554 at 00:25-00:51.

In other words, the reason Phoenix Sky Harbor began using the

moveable pallet cart was concern about infringing the ‘460 patent. We count

it highly unlikely that a “once a day” use would trigger a wholesale change

of operation. Mr. Sears’ testimony that he was not able to identify even one

instance of an airport that did not use the patented method is a strong

indication that the method was used universally. The statement was made in

the context of Mr. Sears’ testimony as a TSA representative that TSA

25

continued to use the ’460 method after the conclusion of the pilot program.

Likewise, Mr. Thaxton’s testimony suggests that, at least in his experience,

there was wide-spread infringement of plaintiff’s patented method.

4. Expert Testimony

At trial, plaintiff called Dr. Jacobson to opine on the extent of TSA’s

unauthorized use of the ‘460 patent. Dr. Jacobson works in the Department

of Statistics at the University of Illinois as a professor of computer science

and industrial engineering. He began work on aviation security issues in

1995, advising the FAA on aviation security through 2016. The court

accepted him as an expert in the operation of security screening checkpoints.

Based on TSA Checkpoint Design Guides, the parties’ stipulations of

infringement, and the deposition testimony of Mr. Mason, he concluded that,

“there is widespread universal infringement of the ‘460 patented method by

the TSA.” Tr. 964:9-11. He also found that the ‘460 patent is:

practiced by the Transportation Security Administration, and

by practicing this method, passengers . . . benefit from this

because ultimately every decision that the TSA makes at a

checkpoint is designed to enhance the safety, security and

efficiency of the operation . . . So ultimately what I found is

that there was tremendous benefit to practicing the method in

safety, security, as well as efficiency.

Tr. 987:14-24.

At trial, in response to a question about the existence of “any evidence

that TSA has not practiced the method of claim 1 of the ‘460 patent at any

time from January 1, 2008 through the present,” he replied, “I found no

evidence to refute that belief.” Tr. 1070:5-8. As it relates to the asserted

dependent claims, “which are claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 11 14, and 15,

did you form any opinions as to the extent of TSA’s infringement of the

asserted dependent claims of the ‘460 patent?” Dr. Jacobson replied that,

“these are once again supported by the design guides and there is no evidence

to suggest that they would not be practiced.” Tr. 1070:10-18.

At trial, Dr. Jacobson was also asked about his understanding of the

parties’ executed stipulation regarding proof of liability under 28 U.S.C.

§1498. As it relates to the parties’ November 2012 stipulation, Dr. Jacobson

testified:

26

As I reviewed the ‘460 patent, as I said before, I was trying to

establish infringement and the extent of the infringement, and

what this informed me is that when the TSA chose to practice

the ‘460 method, that was a decision that they had to make, and

they committed to that decision ultimately by putting it in the

security -- in the design guides. In these design guides, it

provides an optimized security checkpoint . . . but by adding

the stipulation in, the agreement is that a continuous basis

means once the commitment is made, it is applied uniformly,

continuously and universally to the airports which are

designated here as stated[, relating to 10 airports.]

Tr. 1029:3-15.

Dr. Jacobson was asked if he was “aware that at some point in time

the court expanded the inquiry of the present case [from 10 airports] to other

Cat X and Cat I airports” and if he had “look[ed] for any evidence to see

whether TSA follows different procedures at the 10 airports that are the

subject of PX 811, the stipulation, and the other Cat X and Cat I airports.”

Tr. 1029:19-21; 1029:24-1030:2. He replied, “[t]here is perfect consistency

based on the design,” indicating that TSA’s CDGs provided support to infer

that the same infringement which occurred at the 10 airports listed in the

stipulation was occurring at other Cat X and Cat I airports. Tr. 1030:3-4. Dr.

Jacobson concluded that, based on Checkpoint Design Guides, there is no

reason why the infringement that TSA admitted to at 10 Cat X airports should

not also apply to the other Cat X and Cat I airports.

Overall, Dr. Jacobson found that, based on the evidence provided in

the design guides, Mr. Mason’s testimony, and the parties’ stipulations,

TSA’s infringement of claim 1 of the ‘460 patent is “widespread and

universal based on all the information and documentation that I had available

to me.” Tr. 1070:2-4.

Rather than countering Dr. Jacobson’s testimony with expert

testimony of its own, defendant objects to Dr. Jacobson’s testimony on the

basis of his qualifications concerning the design guides:

The only support for its contention besides the guides

themselves is the testimony from Dr. Jacobson who has never

worked for TSA and had never seen a Design Guide before this

litigation.

Def.’s Post-Trial Br. at 9-10.

27

As we explained above, Dr. Jacobson has extensive experience with

airport security and we view him as competent to interpret the design guides

and apply them to the method of the patent. In addition, while his testimony

is in some respects merely a recitation of the three items of proof addressed

above, we find his testimony persuasive in terms of whether any other

methods than the patented one has been used during the relevant period at

TSA-controlled airports.

5. Summary of Plaintiff’s Proof of the Extent of Infringement

We find that plaintiff has carried its burden of proving that, with

certain exceptions we lay out below, its patent was universally used as the

default method for all lanes at all Cat X and Cat I airports. While this finding

is warranted based on the stipulations, CDG Guidelines, admissions, and

expert testimony, it is particularly appropriate in light of the virtually

impossible task plaintiff had of quantifying use. Unlike plaintiff, defendant

had the advantage of virtually unrestricted access to TSA lanes and was the

party best able to preserve the relevant metrics. This was particularly the

case after plaintiff put TSA on notice as early as 2005 of its claims of

infringement. In retrospect, defendant’s resistance and ultimately inability

to comprehensively and in detail provide responses to plaintiff’s discovery

requests may have been understandable due to the complexity and cost

involved. As we will see below, defendant itself undertook a small-scale

effort at determining usage of the patented method, and, in our judgment

failed, in part because the study was limited to a brief period of time and a

limited number of airports. Even though we reject, below, the methods

employed in the survey, it serves to illustrate as well that plaintiff would

never have been able to offer proof of past usage comparable to the detail of

Mr. Tarakemeh’s data.

It is worth clarifying, in view of one of defendant’s arguments with

respect to damages, that we find defendant infringed the method of the patent.

It did not use the tables, trays and carts which plaintiff offered at no cost as

part of its unsuccessful solicitation. Although it could have obtained them

for free if it had contracted with plaintiff, TSA purchased those itself while

infringing the patent.

In sum, we find that plaintiff has carried its burden of proving that its

patented method became the default means used by TSA for screening

passengers at security checkpoints at all Cat X and Cat I airports. It becomes

defendant’s obligation to prove that use was not universal.

28

D. Potential Exceptions to Use of the Patented Method

Defendant made little attempt to challenge plaintiff’s evidence as to

comprehensive widespread use of the ‘460 patent. Instead it argues that

plaintiff’s evidence camouflages non-use as use by indiscriminately treating

all passenger throughput as if it were use of the patent. Defendant contends

that proof of use requires distinguishing between the movement of

passengers through a checkpoint and their belongings to determine whether

a given passenger is exclusively utilizing trays for divestiture and whether

those trays return to their point of origin. Only if a passenger exclusively

divests his or her items onto trays obtained from the proximate end, as

defined by defendant, and then that tray of items is scanned without

interruption, and the passenger reassembles his or her belongings and places

the tray onto a cart that returns to the point of origin is that viewed by

defendant as evidence of infringement. Any break in this chain, for example

if a passenger obtains a tray from another lane, or places an item directly on

the scanning belt, or if a TSA screener removes a tray for closer inspection,

or if a cart is returned to another lane, would, according to defendant, mean

the patent is not being used.

In order to establish these examples of non-use, defendant offered the

testimony of Mr. Tarakemeh, who has been an operations research analyst at

SAIC since 2014. Mr. Tarakemeh was engaged to conduct a study of what

he viewed as use, or not, of the patent at airport checkpoints. During the

study, Mr. Tarakemeh visited 36 airports in 2018 and 2019 for the purpose

of determining the extent to which all the steps of the ‘460 patent were

actually used. As we explain in more detail below, Mr. Tarakemeh was not

merely counting the number of passengers going through a checkpoint.

Instead, he broke the various elements of the movement of passengers and

their belongings into a number of events mimicking the steps of the patent.

If a passenger used three trays, for example, he kept track of the number of

trays and items going into the trays. He also attempted to trace the source

and destination of trays and bin carts. For example, he observed that carts

sometimes were shared between adjacent lanes and that sometimes trays

were removed for additional screening. He viewed each of these events as

potential “attrition points” because, in his view, they broke the chain of use

of the patented method. He employed a team of surveyors to monitor and

quantify all these events.

He concluded that the patented method was actually used by less than

20% of passengers in normal lanes, and less than 1% of the time in lanes

designated as “PreCheck lanes.” From this, defendant concludes that the

court cannot accept universal comprehensive infringement as an established

29

fact. In addition, even if the court finds the government liable for

infringement, defendant argues that the Tarakemeh study demonstrates that

plaintiff’s preferred damages metric—passengers—is inappropriate.

1. Mr. Tarakemeh’s Airport Study

Mr. Tarakemeh has a bachelor’s degree in systems engineering and a

master’s degree in operations research.16 He has worked on a TSA contract

since beginning his work at SAIC in 2014. Mr. Tarakemeh tests procedures

and equipment used at airport security checkpoints and baggage areas to

ensure that they meet safety requirements. He testified as an expert in

operations research analysis and the use of the tray and cart method in

security checkpoints. Dr. Barnett, another of defendant’s experts, then used

Mr. Tarakemeh’s raw data from the 36 sampled airports for the eight-month

period and extrapolated an overall usage rate for the additional Category X

and Category I airports and for previous years.

Mr. Tarakemeh identified four phases in a passenger’s progress

through a security screening checkpoint (“SSCP”): 1) the divest phase, where

passengers are able to place their items in trays or directly on the scanner

belt; 2) the scanner phase, from which trays can be diverted for additional

screening; 3) the recompose phase, where passengers retrieve their items and

dispose of trays; and 4) the cart phase, at which bin carts are recirculated to

the beginning of a lane.

Essential to Mr. Tarakemeh’s analysis is the assumption that the

patent calls for a “closed loop” in the circulation of trays and carts, i.e.,

staying within a single lane. If either trays or carts, or both, cycle through a

different lane, then the patent was not being used.

At the divest phase, non-use could occur in a number of ways. If a

passenger did not use a tray at all, that became a “zero” use. If, as was

sometimes the case, TSA placed a bin cart between two lanes so that trays

could be retrieved from two directions (something Mr. Tarakemeh referred

to as a “bin island”), that also constituted zero use at the divest phase.

16

On December 23, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion in limine to exclude Mr.

Tarakemeh’s opinions. ECF No. 433. On February 20, 2020, we denied

plaintiff’s motion. We did not reach plaintiff’s substantive criticisms, as

none of plaintiff’s contentions would disqualify him from testifying. The

objections went to the weight afforded his opinions and the sufficiency of the

data, but not his qualifications.

30

Similarly, if there was one tray cart per lane, but the cart was placed more

than five feet away from the proximate end of the divesting table, he viewed

that as non-use. As he explained it, if a passenger had to take a “pivot step”

to retrieve a tray, that meant the tray was not at the “proximate end” of the

lane, as contemplated by his view of the patent. Because Mr. Tarakemeh

also tracked the number of items divested, if a passenger simply placed an

item on the conveyer belt without using a tray, that became an instance of

non-use, although he expressed that as a percentage for that phase, reflecting

the total number of items divested.

At the scanner phase, SAIC data collectors tracked whether trays or

items were removed from the scanner belt by TSA inspectors and taken to a

separate secondary screening. Even if the item or tray was returned to the

belt for retrieval by the passenger, Mr. Tarakemeh’s data collectors were

instructed to treat that as an instance of non-use of the patent. In his view,

this was an additional step that broke the link in patent infringement.

At the recompose phase, if a passenger picked up a tray and went into

an overflow area to recompose, but the tray did not end up in the cart at the

distal end of that same lane, that was counted as non-use. In other words, the

tray was not returned to the cart at the distal end to be returned to the

proximate end. He also applied the same five foot “pivot step” inquiry at the

distal end.

Finally, at the cart phase, Mr. Tarakemeh tracked whether TSOs

returned carts to the proximate end of the same lane. If the second cart was

returned to the proximate end of a different lane through a crisscross

movement, that was counted as non-use because the patent envisioned a

closed loop within one lane.

Mr. Tarakemeh defined the overall observed usage rate as the ratio of

the total number of trays observed moving in accordance with the ‘460

method to the total number of items scanned by the scanner machine. Table

V-1 presents the overall observed usage rate broken down by lane type.

DX 1683 at 5.

31

The overall observed usage rate above is obtained by multiplying the

usage rates observed at the four phases. At mixed lanes (a standard

checkpoint lane) the overall observed rate was 19.2 percent. At Pre-Check

lanes, the rate was 0.2 percent. As the court understands his analysis, in the

results for “mixed” lanes above, one could not assume a minimum of 38.4%

infringement based solely on the divest phase results, because using a tray at

the divest phase in a way that infringed the patent might end up with the same

tray, for example, being sent to the wrong lane, resulting in non-

infringement.

The most basic critique plaintiff lodges against the Tarakemeh study

is that it is designed to capture the steps of the patent used by a single

passenger, and it is not, as it should be, focused on TSA’s creation of security

lanes which are set up with the purpose of using the steps of the patent. In

other words, TSA has established a security screening process which, in

normal operation, continually violates the patent, even if a particular

passenger does not, for example, make use of trays. Everyone who passes

through a security check point benefits from increased efficiency, and

therefore focusing on a complicated means of isolating specific instances of

non-use of trays is pointless. According to plaintiff, simply operating the

lane itself, irrespective of how any one passenger chooses to use trays,

constitutes the infringement.

Defendant replies that the ‘460 patent relates to a system for the

movement of items, not people: “a tray and a system that can be used . . . to

provide efficient movement of loose items . . . from a starting point to an

ending point.” JX 1 at col. 5 ls 27-30. Because the patent mentions items,

defendant argues, items are the proper metric of infringement.

This disagreement illustrates why the court asked for additional

briefing on how the parties expect the court to use the Tarakemeh study.

After briefing, it became apparent that defendant did indeed seek to call into

question plaintiff’s assertion of comprehensive infringement, but defendant’s

alternative, and in some respects more important point, was that Mr.

Tarakemeh’s work shows why plaintiff’s royalty calculations, which rely on

passenger volume, are artificially inflated. In other words, even if the court

has reservations about the precision of the Tarakemeh study, defendant

argues that Mr. Tarakemeh was correct to shift the court’s focus to screening

items, and not people. We will reserve for the discussion below the

resolution of how to use his study, assuming it is otherwise relevant and

reliable.

32

Plaintiff has three other objections to the study which are of a type:

they all amount to contentions that Mr. Tarakemeh has misconstrued the

patent by adding steps in some way. The first concerns the exclusion of

instances of passengers taking a “pivot step” in either picking up a tray or

disposing of a tray. Collectors were told to estimate when the bin carts were

positioned more than five feet away from the divesting table or more than

five feet away from the end of the recomposing table. Plaintiff contends that

not only is the term “pivot step” not found in the ‘460 patent or the court’s

claim construction, but that the term lacked precision; there was no way for

data collectors objectively to assess whether a passenger took a “pivot step.”

For reasons set out in the discussion below, we agree with plaintiff

that the limitation of not making a “pivot step” is not present in the patent,

hence this deduction point is invalid. Even if it were, we think the metric is

too subjective to be taken into account.

Plaintiff also argues that exclusion of lanes making use of bin islands

was improper. Here, however, we agree with defendant’s assumption that

this forms a relevant inquiry. As Mr. Tarakemeh’s study revealed, there were

occasions during his eight-month study in which lanes shared bin carts. As

we explain below, whether at the proximate or distal end of a lane, use of

such bin islands constitutes a different method than the one covered by the

‘460 patent because the trays circulate across lanes. While plaintiff points

out that there is no evidence that bin islands were in use before 2018, that

merely factors into how the court will calculate damages. We note, however,

that defendant gave us no readily measurable way to extract instances of bin

island use or crossovers.17

The third attrition point to which plaintiff objects is that related to

secondary screening. Mr. Tarakemeh’s data gatherers were instructed to

record instances of trays being removed for secondary screening as non-use

at the scanning phase, unless they saw the tray returned to the recompose

table. Mr. Tarakemeh instructed his observers to count those instances of

secondary screening as non-use, which resulted in approximately 3% non-

infringement at that point. While Mr. Tarakemeh testified that he attempted

to account for trays that returned to the lane after being pulled for secondary

screening, he also testified that trays were not tracked from start to finish.

We are unpersuaded by this methodology because, without knowing whether

a tray departed the lane, the trackers would not know whether the method

17

While at the distal end it appears that the only reductions relate to cross-

over or bin islands, the same is not true at the proximate end.

33

was practiced as it regards a particular tray, even assuming that was a relevant

metric to count infringement.

Plaintiff’s remaining critiques concern the mathematics of the study.

For example, plaintiff argues that items being tracked at the four phases are

different from each other, leading to an incoherence when the results are

combined. At phase one, two, and three, the study tracks trays and items. At

phase four, only carts and trays are tracked. Plaintiff also argues that the

SAIC study artificially amplifies the instances of non-use because a

passenger’s use of single tray can result in multiple instances of non-use. If

a bin cart was located six feet away from either the distal or proximate end

of a screening lane, each tray could be an instance of non-use at the divesting

and recompose phase. If the passenger put a knapsack on the conveyor belt

in addition to the tray, that became another partial non-use at the divesting

phase. If a tray was removed for additional screening, that became an

instance of non-use during the scanner phase. Tracking individual non-uses

thus creates the potential that a single passenger can account for multiple

instances of non-infringement.

Disagreement between the parties’ experts as to whether the SAIC

calculations are a meaningful way to measure use of the patented method

generated a lively debate. If we understand Dr. Barnett’s explanation

correctly, these phenomena do not skew the results because the calculations

are done independently for each phase. The results for any one phase, based

on thousands of data points, are accurate and meaningful, in his view.

Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Jacobson claims that, because of the study’s faulty

design, it cannot be corrected, and thus it is completely unreliable. The court

also had its own concerns, which we believe were not satisfactorily explained

by Dr. Barnett as to the multiplier effect of “zero” usage at any given phase.

In the final analysis, however, we believe it is unnecessary to attempt

to harmonize the expert’s views on the reliability of measuring non-

infringement in the way that Mr. Tarakemeh and Dr. Barnett attempted.

Once we remove those asserted instances of non-infringement that Mr.

Tarakemeh improperly applied, the results as a whole are compromised. We

recognize, however, that the use of bin islands or tray cart crossovers is some

evidence that plaintiff’s method was not utilized at all times at all screening

points.

What is also true is that Dr. Barnett’s data was gathered from 36

airports representing only 60 percent of air traffic and extrapolated to the

remaining airports. More important, he extrapolated from an eight-month

period from 2018 to 2019 backward across a thirteen-year period, assuming

34

the same conditions. That is particularly problematic given the recent

introduction of bin islands.

2. TSA PreCheck Lanes

A related but separate instance of non-infringement which defendant

offers concerns the use of PreCheck lanes. Beginning in 2011, TSA began

offering expedited screening lanes at some airports. The purpose of

PreCheck is to expedite the screening process for passengers who have

successfully completed TSA’s background investigation.18 TSA PreCheck

lanes allow passengers to “experience a smoother screening process—no

need to remove shoes, belts . . . laptops, or light jackets” versus TSA’s

standard security screening lanes which require removing coats, shoes,

laptops, and other items before proceeding through security.19 Instead,

personal items may be placed directly on the scanning belt, without a tray, as

is the case in the instance of not removing a laptop from its carrying case or

passengers keeping their shoes and jackets on. In other words, when

passengers use TSA PreCheck lanes, they do not divest as many items into

trays on the scanning belt as they would in standard security lanes.

Defendant argues that PreCheck lanes do not infringe the ‘460

method. Defendant reasons that passengers in a PreCheck lane do not need

to use a tray for their belongings because passengers are required to remove

fewer garments and are able to leave items in carrying cases. As a result,

fewer items pass through the scanning device in trays as taught by the claims

of the ‘460 patent. It relies on the Tarakemeh study to quantify the extent of

infringement at PreCheck lanes. By “use,” Mr. Tarakemeh means that a

given passenger places all divested items on a tray that cycles through the

security lane. If a passenger placed any items directly on the belt, even

though using a tray for some items, he treated that as non-use. From this he

concludes that the method is used less than 1% of the time in PreCheck lanes.

Plaintiff takes the position that, even though passengers often may not

use trays in PreCheck lanes, the relevant fact is that TSA has set up all lanes,

including those employing PreCheck, to use the patented method. It is not

the passenger that violates the patent; it is TSA that infringes by positioning

carts at both ends of the scanning devices and using them to recycle trays.

18

TSA’s website concerning TSA PreCheck, https://www.tsa.gov/precheck

(last visited Aug. 3, 2021).

19

Id.

35

As we discuss below, we agree with plaintiff that the relevant fact is that the

lane is set up and operated in a way that infringes the patent. The fact that

few passengers make use of trays we view as relevant not to infringement

but to calculation of a royalty.

3. Automatic Screening Lanes

It is undisputed that in 2016, TSA implemented, on a limited basis, a

completely new means of returning trays called “Automated Screening

Lanes” or “ASLs.” These involve lanes in which carts are not used at all,

and trays are automatically returned on a conveyor belt. They involve over-

sized trays which are labeled for tracking purposes within the scanner. There

is no question that they do not employ the ‘460 method. Atlanta is the only

airport with ASLs in every lane. Plaintiff’s damages expert estimates that

over 100,000,000 passengers have been screened using such lanes and that

implementing ASLs universally would cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

E. Findings Related to Damages

Plaintiff argues for use of a running royalty based on passenger

throughput. Plaintiff’s evidence that 7,660,935,659 passengers went through

screening lanes at Cat I and Cat X airports between 2008 and 2018 is

unrebutted.

Another relevant factor in calculating damages is the extent to which

plaintiff granted an implied license to TSA to use its patent at certain airports

covering specific periods of time. In the discussion section below, we

consider the parties’ competing evidence and argument concerning the scope

of that implied license.

Also discussed below, defendant argues that, assuming liability,

damages should be determined based on a lump sum royalty. The key factor

it relies on in advocating for a lump sum is its allegation that there existed an

acceptable, non-infringing alternative to plaintiff’s patented method at the

time the parties would have conducted a hypothetical negotiation—the one-

cart method or moveable pallet cart system (MPC) adopted in Arizona. The

availability of such a non-infringing alternative would have limited the

amount that TSA was willing to pay at the hypothetical negotiating table.

Mr. Thaxton, a seventeen-year TSA veteran and a Deputy FSD,

designed the MPC system and implemented it in Phoenix Skyharbor Airport

in 2018 as a way to avoid using plaintiff’s patent. TSA first started using the

MPC system in March 2018. Instead of using two movable tray carts that

36

function both to store and move trays, the MPC used a modified tray to

become a “mini-pallet”20 that functions as a “base unit” in which other trays

are nested and stored. A single two-wheeled dolly is then used to pick up the

mini-pallet and accumulated trays from the distal end of the screening lane

and move them to the proximate end. The mini-pallet does not have wheels.

While it can be picked up or slid, as a practical matter, it is not designed to

move independently of the dolly. The dolly, in effect, serves a purpose not

unlike the plaintiff’s tray carts, although the MPC uses only one dolly per

security screening lane. In contrast, the patent requires two carts.

Mr. Thaxton testified that in 2018 he assembled the various elements

of the MPC from local hardware stores. He explained that the “Dolly Pal”

component is currently a “stock item” that is “off-the-shelf,” Tr. 2167:16-

17; although he also testified that it was not commercially available in 2005.

“I don’t think they produced it until 2010.” Tr. 2168:15-16. Mr. Thaxton

testified that it took him only a short time to assemble the one cart system.

As he said, “it was kind of a no-brainer.” Tr. 591:5-6.

Defendant’s damages expert, Mr. McGavock, testified that he was

able to determine what was commercially available in 2005 to put together

the MPC system.21 He opined that, although the “Dolly Pal” component

currently used in the one-cart method was not on sale until 2010, all of the

components—the trays, the dollies, and mini-pallets—were either

commercially available or there were similar components, including custom

pallets, that were on the market at the time of the hypothetical negotiation.

Mr. McGavock went on to determine what it would have cost in 2005

to implement the MPC at all Category X and Category I airports. He

concluded it would have cost between $5,922,399 and $9,917,101.22

20

Sometime after 2010, instead of using a tray to create a mini-pallet, Mr.

Thaxton located a commercially available Dolly Pal and bolted a tray onto it

to form the base unit. Mr. Thaxton testified the Dolly Pal was not available

until 2010.

21

He testified that he used “the Wayback machine to look at the internet as

it existed in 2005” to find ads selling the various components of what he

considered to be the moveable pallet cart. Tr. 2896:23-24.

22

Plaintiff’s experts calculate a much higher number due to their assertion

that the inefficiencies of the MPC would dictate hiring many more security

officers.

37

Defendant later uses this calculus to ground its numbers to limit plaintiff’s

damages.

The MPC was used at nine commercial airports in Arizona and in

some lanes at the Denver Airport.23 Mr. Thaxton testified that he evaluated

metrics such as throughput and personnel usage before and after the MPC

was implemented and concluded that the metrics were the same as when

using the ‘460 method.

Plaintiff’s expert, Tim Hollifield, was a checkpoint team manager

involved in the testing of SecurityPoint’s system during the SafeSkies study.

Mr. Hollifield identified several inadequacies of the MPC that would, in his

view, have rendered the MPC system unacceptable for widespread use by

TSA in 2005:

The goal for TSA was to calm the checkpoint down, and an

aluminum hand truck going through a metal detector caused

significant distractions. When you push that through, they’re

going to stop the lane, you’re going to create distractions for

the screening process, and also you’re going to increase

anxiety for passengers.

Tr. 1726:12-18.

Mr. Arroyo also noted that the MPC requires TSOs to ask their

colleagues for assistance when returning the MPC through the disabled

passenger gate. Mr. McGavock admitted that MPCs caused damage to gates

and access gate panels, which required TSO time to repair, and negatively

impacted TSOs by taking them away from performing security-related

functions. According to Mr. McGavock, MPCs have a thin, protruding nose

plate which posed a risk of strikes to passengers. In contrast, the ‘460 patent

showed no ankle strikes when the method was tested. Additionally,

SecurityPoint’s carts could hold up to 60 bins per cart, whereas the MPC

system could only hold 28 bins per cart, resulting in 1.28 more minutes per

hour spent on returning bins.

We have no reason to question Mr. Thaxton’s testimony concerning

the availability in 2018 of the component parts from which he assembled the

proto-type MPC, or for that matter, Mr. McGavock’s evidence that similar

23

Mr. Thaxton testified, “[the MPC] went to the nine airports, commercial

airports, in Arizona.” Tr. 589:4-5; Mr. Ambrefe also testified that he saw the

MPC in use in Denver.

38

components were available in 2005. What the court finds more telling,

however, is the fact that the one cart system was not developed in the sixteen

years following 9/11. We find speculative and counter factual Mr.

McGavock’s testimony that, in the hypothetical negotiation, the size of the

patent holder’s demand for compensation would have prompted TSA to

implement the MPC system in 2005. The best evidence of what TSA would

have done is what it did—adopt plaintiff’s patented method on a massive

scale, despite the asserted availability of a “no brainer,” low-cost alternative.

Mr. Arroyo explained that several alternatives were introduced by

TSA between 2001 and 2006 in an effort to expedite screening. In addition,

Mr. Malackowski testified that experiments were undertaken at various

airports, all of which failed (such as a bin runner system, side slide, and

mechanical conveyor belt). As he explained, “for an extended period of time,

the government was continually looking for alternative solutions . . . and the

[MPC system] was not . . . identified for [13 years].” Tr. 1925:7-11. At the

validity trail, Mr. Arroyo also testified that, prior to adopting plaintiff’s

method, TSA thought the introduction of carts, including a dolly cart, would

be a hazard and decrease efficiency. Validity Trial Tr. 1593-94. Moreover,

as we discussed above, Ms. Gloria Bender was hired from 2003 to 2005 to

develop a solution to remedy efficiency problems at SSCPs, but never

suggested a cart-and-tray management system as claimed in the ‘460 patent

or use of a dolly and pallet system. We find that the MPC was not an available

and acceptable method at the time of the hypothetical negotiation.

DISCUSSION

I. Infringement

We found above that plaintiff put on sufficient evidence to confirm

universal and continuous infringement of its patent at all Cat X and Cat I

airports. The only potential exceptions we reserved from our examination of

the Tarakameh study were with respect to TSA’s use of bin islands,

crisscrossing carts, and PreCheck and ASL lanes. We turn then to the import

of the Tarakemeh study.

A. The Parties’ Opposing Conclusions on Mr. Tarakemeh’s Study

We agree with plaintiff that the Tarakemeh study is fundamentally

flawed and that his overall conclusions are irrelevant. The reason is that he

improperly assumed that TSA infringed only if a particular passenger

actually divested items onto at least one tray taken from a tray cart which

39

was no more than five feet away from the proximate end of a screening lane

and if there was no secondary screening.

We disagree with this operating assumption. We hold that TSA

infringed the patent when it operated screening lanes which, in their normal

operation, invited passengers to take a tray from a first tray cart at the

proximate end of a particular screening lane and then, after scanning, to then

return that tray to a second tray cart at the distal end of the same lane, after

which the second tray cart was returned, with trays, to the proximate end of

the same lane by TSA. That was clearly established to be the routine process

by which TSA screened passengers. Once TSA opened up a lane for use

employing these steps, the infringement was continuous, and it was

infringement by TSA, not the passenger. We view it as legally immaterial

whether a particular passenger declined the use of a tray, or placed items

directly on the scanning belt. Therefore, recording how many trays a

passenger took, how many items were divested into trays, or how many items

were placed on the scanning belt directly was a useless exercise. It

demonstrated nothing about whether the patent was being infringed.

We recognize, however, that Mr. Tarakemeh also recorded some other

“attrition points,” which, as we suggested above and we discuss below, we

do find relevant. What we reject, however, is his overall conclusion that

there was no more than 19.2% infringement in normal lanes and less than 1%

infringement in PreCheck lanes. This conclusion can be ignored because the

study was not designed to capture infringement. And it can be ignored

without reliance on the enfilade of more detailed criticism from plaintiff’s

experts. We turn now to the particular attrition points he identified.

1. Pivot Step

Mr. Tarakemeh excluded from the infringement tally instances in

which passengers took a “pivot step” of five feet or more, either in picking

up or disposing of a tray. We need not address plaintiff’s criticisms directed

at the imprecision and subjectivity of this metric. The term “pivot step” is

not present in the patent. It is Mr. Tarakemeh’s interpretation of the patent,

and it is one that is not justified by the court’s claim construction. Claim one,

step one of the ‘460 patent requires positioning a first tray cart containing

trays at the proximate end of a scanning device through which objects may

be passed, wherein said scanning device comprises a proximate end and a

distal end.

In our construction of the terms “proximate” and “distal” we held that

proximate meant “proximal or nearest to; referring to the end of the scanning

40

device where an object enters the device.” SecurityPoint Holdings, Inc. v.

United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 1, 9 (2013). We described distal end as “farthest

from; referring to the end of the scanning device where an object exits the

device.” Id. We gave no further specificity to location or distance from the

scanning device. In fact, we specifically rejected defendant’s efforts to add

more precision to location:

Defendant views its definition of an “end” to be a precise point

as compared to a more general area at the extent or boundary

of something. We do not share defendant’s understanding of

its construction; it implies a level of precision that we find

generally lacking in the 460 patent. The patent describes a

method for cycling trays through a scanning device at a

security check point. It is not dependent upon a great deal of

precision in the location of the instrumentalities involved.

Perhaps if “proximate end” and “distal end” were used to

describe the actual physical entry and exit point of the

screening device itself, defendant’s understanding would be

natural. Here, however, the claims use the terms to describe the

location of tray carts external to the device. As it is, “proximate

end” means “proximal or nearest to; referring to the end of the

scanning device where an object enters the device.” “Distal

end” means “farthest from; referring to the end of the scanning

device where an object exits the device.” Nothing further is

implied by those definitions.

Id. at 8-9.

A tray cart six feet away from the screening belt therefore literally

infringes. Even if it did not, however, this is precisely the type of additional

limitation which would trigger the court’s ruling that, if Mr. Tarakemeh’s

presentation relied on a new limitation, and one inconsistent with the court’s

prior claim construction, plaintiff would be able to resuscitate its argument

of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. In that event, the

testimony of Dr. Jacobson is clear that positioning a first tray cart containing

trays six feet away from the proximate end of a scanning device amounted to

performing the same function in the same way to produce the same result.

The same would be true of trays at the distal end.

2. Secondary Screening

Similarly, plaintiff objects to Mr. Tarakemeh’s secondary screening

as a point of attrition. Secondary screening occurs when a tray is selected

41

for additional screening and taken away from the general area of the scanning

device. Apparently the reason for treating this as an attrition point is not that

this amounted to an additional step, but because Mr. Tarakemeh assumed

that, unless it was clear that a tray returned to the revesting table, it must have

gone to a different lane, thus triggering concerns about “criss-cross”

movement between lanes. He testified that his observers attempted to

account for trays that returned to the lane after being pulled for secondary

screening, but he also testified that trays were not tracked from start to finish.

Under these circumstances we are unwilling to assume that secondary

screening should be treated as non-infringement.

3. Bin Islands and Tray Crossovers

Finally, plaintiff argues that the exclusion of lanes making use of bin

islands and tray crossovers was improper. Here, however, we agree with

defendant’s assumption that the existence of bin islands and instances of the

crisscross scenario, in which bins from the distal end of one lane are returned

to the proximate end of another lane, are relevant because these constitute

non-use of the patent.

As an initial matter, we find that making exceptions for bin islands

and instances of tray cart crisscross does not trigger the doctrine of

equivalents. These are not new claim constructions; rather, the existence of

bin islands or the crisscross scenario were merely observations of where tray

carts were situated and how they moved at the airports Mr. Tarakemeh

surveyed. As we observed above, there were occasions during Tarakemeh’s

eight-month study in which lanes shared bin carts, and we concluded that use

of such bin islands constitutes a different method than the one covered by the

‘460 patent because the trays circulate across lanes rather than in a closed-

loop fashion as contemplated by the patent. Mr. Tarakemeh was applying

the court’s construction of the patent. We further note, however, that

defendant gave us no readily measurable way to extract instances of bin

island use or crossovers. In fact, concerning the quantum of damages, the

government concedes that it does not rely on Mr. Tarakemeh’s study. Rather,

defendant uses the study to illustrate what it views as plaintiff’s unreasonable

eight cent per-passenger royalty.

Concerning the issue of bin islands and tray cart crossovers, those

instances thus do provide some evidence that the ‘460 patent was not used at

all times, at all lanes, at all airports. According to Mr. Tarakemeh’s data, at

the cart phase, reported in Table V-1 above, use of plaintiff’s method was

70.8%. Non-use due to bin island and tray cart crisscross instances would be

29.2 %, assuming all non-use at the cart phase related to whether or not a cart

42

was returned from the distal end to the proximate end of the same lane. This

number cannot be directly applied to the infringement calculus, however.

The study was only conducted at 36 airports over an eight-month period from

2018 to 2019. There is no evidence that bin islands were in use before 2018.

Accordingly, non-use as it relates to bin island and crossover instances, will

be considered for the limited purpose of determining a royalty rate.

In sum, Mr. Tarakemeh’s study does not rebut plaintiff’s claim

concerning TSA’s universal infringement of the ‘460 method. We agree with

plaintiff that inferring that the ‘460 patent was rarely used at all in Cat X and

Cat I airports from 2005 to 2018 based solely on a survey conducted from

2018 and 2019 at 36 airports is unreasonable due to the lack of historical data

and questionable mathematical calculations, and more importantly, because

the survey was not designed to capture use of the patent. We conclude that

TSA made the patented method the default at all Cat X and Cat I airports,

with the exception of those using the MPC and ASL systems. Moreover,

because the government has not indicated how the SAIC study should be

applied to the damages calculation other than to argue that the study shows

the unreasonableness of plaintiff’s damages calculation, we find that the

study does not convey meaningful data related to damages, with the

exception of the finding that there was some use of bin islands and tray cart

crossovers.

II. Damages

A. A Running Royalty Versus a Lump Sum Payment

Having found liability, plaintiff is entitled to recover “reasonable and

entire compensation” for the government’s acquisition of a compulsory non-

exclusive patent license. 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a). Both parties agree that

damages should be determined by constructing a hypothetical negotiation

between a willing licensor and licensee using factors spelled out in Georgia-

Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y.

1970), modified and aff’d, 446 F.2d 295 (2d Cir. 1971); see also Rite-Hite

Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) (citing

Hanson v. Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc., 718 F.2d 1075, 1078 (Fed. Cir.

1983)). Plaintiff bears the burden of proof.

One means of measuring compensation, particularly when profits are

not a relevant measure, is to require the defendant to pay a running royalty

for a license as well as damages for its delay in paying the royalty. See

Standard Mfg. Co. v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 748, 758 (1999), abrogated

in other respects by Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed.

43

Cir. 2011); see also Wright v. United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 466, 469 (2002). An

alternative calculus involves a lump sum payment. See Lucent Techs., Inc.

v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Plaintiff advocates for a running royalty, which it argues should

consist of $0.08 per-passenger going back to at least 2008.24 That would lead

to damages of $618,505,375 million.25 Plaintiff claims that, “This amount is

inclusive of delay damages, but it will need to be trued up as of the date of

judgment to reflect additional passenger throughput and additional delay

damages.” Pl.’s Post-Trial Br. at 65.

Defendant asks the court to adopt a lump sum royalty, which it

contends should be no more than a maximum of $12,637,499, an amount

representing the cost to implement the MPC system at all airports.26

The most basic issue to resolve, therefore, is whether to adopt a

running royalty rate as opposed to a lump sum. There are generic

considerations involved. For example, as defendant points out, for both

contracting parties, the lump-sum license generally avoids ongoing

administrative burdens of monitoring usage of the invention. Plaintiff

counters that the lump sum royalty runs the risk of an unanticipated windfall

to either party due to unforeseen circumstances or miscalculation of the

patent’s value or anticipated use. A per-passenger royalty would have

provided both parties with the flexibility of ending the arrangement.

24

Although the parties agree to an earlier date of first infringement,

plaintiff’s damages calculations begin in 2008.

25

Plaintiff’s expert, Mr. Malackowski, testified that “$618 million . . . takes

into account deductions for the implied license at about 21 percent,

deductions for ASLs and a 10-year bond delay payment rate.” Tr. 1948:25-

1949:3.

26

Mr. McGavock’s opines that the cost of implementing the MPC method at

all Category X and Category I airports would be between $5,922,399 and

$9,917,101, plus delay damages. His figure for the total reasonable and

entire compensation was $12,637,499. Mr. Malackowski criticized that

figure for not including increased labor hours that would have been necessary

had TSA used the MPC instead of the ‘460 method nationwide.

44

Mr. Malakckowski testified that the remaining term of the license,

approximately 17 years, also would motivate the parties to agree to a running

royalty versus a lump sum. He reasoned that, since the hypothetical

negotiation would have taken place in 2005, the parties to the negotiation

would need to assess what might happen over the next 17 years to account

for future innovation. Because of the length of the remaining term, we agree

that TSA would have been motivated not to lock itself into a lump sum, in

the hope that it could minimize future payments by engineering a way around

the patented method. Instead, we believe that TSA would have been

motivated to try to reach agreement on a de minimis running royalty as a way

to avoid a large lump sum that might turn out to have been unnecessary.

Plaintiff also argues that a running royalty based on passenger

throughput would have logically suggested itself to hypothetical negotiators.

First, because, as Mr. Malackowski testified, “the passenger is essentially the

engine of commerce that results in the benefits of the ‘460 Patent.” Tr.

1819:16-18. In addition, as Dr. Jacobson testified, one of the primary

benefits of the patented method is reduced passenger wait time. No other

metric for use with a royalty was offered by defendant and none appears to

the court. Personal belongings do not flow through the screening points

unless they are directly associated with a passenger, and the use of trays and

carts would, in any event, be considerably more difficult to track. The most

relevant and simplest metric—passengers—was also readily available. TSA

already tracks passenger throughput in order to measure performance of its

operations, and it already charges usage fees on a per-passenger basis for

enhanced security. In addition, SecurityPoint’s business model was already

based on passenger throughput.

Defendant offers a number of particularized reasons why the parties

to the hypothetical negotiation would have agreed to a lump-sum royalty,

versus a running royalty, and why, if a running royalty had been adopted, it

would not be based on passenger throughput. It argues that it is not feasible

to track precise usage of the patented method, that usage of the claimed

method is sporadic, and that plaintiff’s concentration on passenger

throughput overestimates usage of the claimed method and encompasses

instances of infringement and non-infringement. We find none of the

arguments persuasive.

The simple answer to these critiques we have already explained. The

reason the government contends it would be difficult to apply a running

royalty is that it accepts Mr. Tarakemeh’s flawed view of how to measure

use of the patent. TSA, however, infringes by the way in which it sets up

and operates lanes. The assumed complexity disappears when it becomes

45

obvious that it is unnecessary to track trays, individual items divested, and

carts. For the same reason, there was no “sporadic use.” The only thing

which made it appear sporadic was Mr. Tarakemeh’s focus on items, trays

and divestments.

Defendant’s strongest argument in favor of a lump sum amount is that

there was available an acceptable, non-infringing alternative that would have

given TSA great leverage in the hypothetical 2005 negotiations, namely the

MPC. The Federal Circuit has recognized that non-infringing alternatives

will necessarily limit the amount a party would be willing to pay to use the

patented technology at the hypothetical negotiation. AstraZeneca AB v.

Apotex Corp., 782 F.3d 1324, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“There is little incentive

. . . for the infringer to take a license rather than side-step the patent with a

simple change in its technology.”); Riles v. Shell Expl. & Prod. Co., 298 F.3d

1302, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The economic relationship between the

patented method and non-infringing alternative methods, of necessity, would

limit the hypothetical negotiation.”). The question, therefore, is whether the

MPC system infringes the patent, was an acceptable alternative, and was

available.

1. Does the MPC Infringe the ‘460 Patent?

The ‘460 method cycles trays through a checkpoint using two carts.

In contrast, the MPC uses only one cart. The addition of the second cart was

critical to the patentability of the method. It is thus a decisive difference.

Defendant alleges that SecurityPoint ignores the requirement that a “tray

cart” be an actual cart. Instead, defendant claims that plaintiff relies on

conclusory statements of Mr. Arroyo and Dr. Jacobson, that a “tray cart” does

not require wheels.

We are unpersuaded by the creative argument from plaintiff’s experts

that one, or even two mini-pallets at either end of the checkpoint are

theoretically movable and thus constitute the two carts required. Clearly the

mini-pallets are platforms intended to receive trays and are then moved with

the dolly. While there may have been some sighting of agents sliding pallets

on Velcro skids across the floor, that is not a meaningful equivalent to two

moveable tray carts.

2. Were MPCs an Acceptable Alternative?

To be deemed acceptable, the alleged non-infringing substitute must

not “possess characteristics significantly different from the patented

product.” Kaufman Co. v. Lantech, Inc., 926 F.2d 1136, 1142 (Fed. Cir.

46

1991). Mr. Thaxton testified that he evaluated certain metrics such as

throughput and personnel usage before and after the MPC was implemented

and that the throughput metrics were the same as when using the ‘460

method. Defendant also argues that the acceptability of the method is proved

by the fact that it was used in nine commercial airports in Arizona and for a

period in some lanes at Denver International Airport.27

Plaintiff notes that use of the MPCs did not begin until 2018, long

after the theoretical 2005 negotiations. In addition, it argues that the MPC

system was severely deficient when compared to the ‘460 method, thus

rendering it unacceptable as an alternative. Plaintiff’s expert, Mr. Hollifield,

was a checkpoint team manager involved in the testing of SecurityPoint’s

system during the SafeSkies study. He saw the benefits of the ‘460 patent

firsthand when it was first tested and identified certain ways in which the

MPC system would have been less desirable, including triggering metal

detectors and causing increasing stoppages.

Mr. Arroyo explained that the MPC requires TSOs to ask their

colleagues for assistance when returning the dolly through the ADA gate,

which, according to Mr. McGavock, occasionally resulted in damage to ADA

gates and access gate panels. The MPC dolly carts have a thin, protruding

nose plate which posed a risk of strikes to passengers. The ‘460 method cart

could hold up to 60 bins per cart, whereas the MPC system could only hold

28 bins per pallet. Mr. Arroyo also testified that the MPC system required

significant energy to operate, and it is less stable, because it operated with

the two wheels versus the ‘460’s four-wheeled tray cart.

As defendant points out, however, an alternative need not provide the

same level of benefits or quality if the relevant consumer would have

accepted it. See Brunswick Corp. v. United States, 36 Fed. Cl. 204, 217

(1996). In this respect although we agree with the government that the

asserted deficiencies of the MPC smack of exaggeration, we believe that, if

given a choice, TSA would have preferred to use the patented method, so

long as it came with no legal liabilities. The patented method was more

efficient and less likely to cause minor damage or injury. The latter half of

the inquiry—whether the relevant consumer would have accepted the

alternative—is much more telling. We agree with plaintiff that the strongest

evidence that the MPC was not an acceptable alternative was that TSA used

27

The parties offer competing evidence regarding whether MPCs continue to

be used at the Denver airport today. It is unnecessary to resolve that dispute,

however, because our holding that the alternative method was neither

acceptable nor available is unconcerned with where it is used today.

47

the MPC only at Arizona airports and some lanes at Denver International

Airport, and it did not begin doing so until 2018, when it became apparent

that there was a serious patent infringement problem. In short, development

of the MPC itself smacks of contrivance because it was implemented, not in

response to a felt physical need, but to minimize damages from patent

infringement after many years of unauthorized use.

It is also telling that, despite the pendency of this lawsuit since 2011,

and the concerted efforts of TSA to design around the patented method,

plaintiff’s method has been adopted wholesale around the country. Contrast

that with the spotty use of the MPC and the very late development of ASLs.

We conclude that the MPC was not sufficiently attractive to dissuade TSA

negotiators from considering paying for a more attractive alternative. In

addition, for the reasons explained below, we are persuaded that it was not

available in 2005, albeit for some of the same reasons that it was not an

attractive alternative.

3. Was the MPC Method Available?

Defendant argues that even if the one-cart method was not used until

March 2018, that does not mean it was unavailable in 2005. Defendant

contends that an alternative does not need to be actually in use to be

“available” to the hypothetical licensee so long as the licensee possessed “all

of the necessary equipment, know-how, and experience” at the time of the

hypothetical negotiation. Micro Chem., Inc. v. Lextron, Inc., 318 F.3d 1119,

1123 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-

Products Co., 185 F.3d 1341, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Rather a hypothetical

licensee would look to alternatives that were “in the wings.” Zygo Corp. v.

Wyko Corp., 79 F.3d 1563, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (discussing reasonable

royalty).

Mr. Thaxton testified that he obtained the materials he used to create

a fixed receptacle for trays, as well as a dolly, from commercially available

sources in 2018. When he first attempted to design around the ’460 patent,

he managed to come up with the one-cart method in a relatively short period

of time. To create a fixed base for holding trays at both ends of the screening

lane, he modified a single tray and labeled it to discourage passengers from

trying to pick it up. He later switched to a premanufactured “Dolly Pal,”

which he conceded was not available in 2005. Mr. McGavock confirmed,

however, that all of the components or component substitutes, such as

customized pallets, were available at the time of the hypothetical negotiation.

48

We conclude that the constituent components or their equivalents

were probably commercially available in 2005, and it would take minimal

engineering skills to build from a tray or tray platform an elevated pallet to

hold trays. Mr. Thaxton or someone else from TSA probably could have

cobbled together in 2005 the same or similar pieces of equipment into an

MPC.

This does not amount to proof of availability, however. TSA expert

Gloria Bender testified at the validity trial that her company was engaged by

TSA at several airports to improve checkpoint efficiency but was unable to

develop a satisfactory solution to the problems solved by the methods

claimed in the ‘460 patent. She, along with TSA expert, Robert Cammarato,

also testified that even though it was their responsibility to solve efficiency

problems in SSCPs and establish standard operating procedures for TSA

screeners from 2003 to 2005, they never suggested a cart-and-tray

management system as claimed in the ‘460 patent.

Mr. Arroyo also explained that several alternatives were explored by

TSA between 2001 and 2006 at various airports, such as a bin runner system,

side slide, and mechanical conveyor belt, all of which failed. Mr.

Malackowski added that “for an extended period of time, the government

was continually looking for alternative solutions . . . and the [MPC system]

was not one of them that was identified for that first decade plus.”28 Tr.

1925:7-11. And, as noted earlier, we have Mr. Arroyo’s 2015 testimony that

the use of carts was considered counterintuitive at checkpoints at the time

when the hypothetical negotiation would have taken place. This further

suggests to us that TSA would not have come up with the MPC method back

in 2005.

Two things are clear. First, what was not available was a

commercially offered method or “system” of a pallet and dolly for moving

trays, nor did TSA have an internally developed system that was waiting in

the wings. See State Industries, Inc. v. Mor-Flo Industries, Inc., 883 F.2d

1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1989). There was not available a single product that

performed like the tray and cart system.

More importantly, however, the know-how, experience, and

motivation necessary to assemble the parts into the combined tray holder and

28

Mr. Malackowski explained: “And so there is no basis to believe that

sitting down in 2005, the negotiators would have thought of, developed, the

movable pallet cart. It was not obvious at the time, just as the simple elegant

invention of SecurityPoint was not obvious at that time.” Tr. 1925:12-16.

49

dolly system was also clearly missing at the time of the hypothetical

negotiation. Cf. Grain Processing, 185 F.3d at 1354. If it had been present,

it would not have taken thirteen years and repeated, targeted, and TSA-

financed efforts by engineers to come up with a solution to a problem that

was obviously not a “no brainer.” We find that the one-cart method or MPC

would not have occurred to the hypothetical negotiators and was therefore

not available to influence the negotiations.

This is not to say that the apparent simplicity of plaintiff’s method

would not have occurred to the government. As Mr. Malacowski observed,

in the event TSA developed a new technology (such as automated screening

lanes), TSA could have stopped paying royalties on passengers passing

through lanes that used the new technology. This offered TSA an incentive

to use a minimal running royalty to buy time to develop an alternative.

Plaintiff has established that the parties would have elected to use a

running royalty, and not a lump sum payment. Defendant has not proved

that the MPC was an available, acceptable alternative. What follows is

consideration of the amount of that royalty.

B. Other Factors Influencing the Negotiation

Reasonable royalty damages are determined based on what the parties

would have agreed to in a hypothetical negotiation just prior to the date of

first infringement. In this case, that would be September 2005. The Federal

Circuit has held that the hypothetical negotiations model produces the result

“more of the character of a forced settlement where neither party gets all it

would wish.” Rite–Hite Corp., 56 F.3d at 1556.

In analyzing the hypothetical negotiation, the court applies the factors

from Georgia–Pacific, which provides a “list of evidentiary facts relevant, in

general, to the determination of the amount of a reasonable royalty for a

patent license.” Ga.-Pac. Corp., 318 F. Supp. at 1120 (outlining the factors

relevant to the determination of a reasonable royalty). The parties are not

required to address all the factors because “there is no formula by which these

factors can be rated precisely in the order of their relative importance or by

which their economic significance can be automatically transduced into their

pecuniary equivalent.” Id. at 1120–21. Thus, in the court’s construction of

the hypothetical negotiation, some “factors may be of minimal or no

relevance to a particular case and other factors may have to be molded by the

Court to fit the facts of the case at hand.” Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Paragon

Trade Brands, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 547, 607 (D. Del. 2001). The court is not

“constrained” by the Georgia-Pacific factors and need not consider factors

50

that are “inapposite or inconclusive.” Brunswick Corp., 36 Fed. Cl. at 212

(citing Ga.-Pac. Corp., 318 F. Supp. at 1120).

Although there are fifteen Georgia-Pacific factors, the only ones

either or both parties discussed are the following:

(1) The current, established royalty rates under the patent at issue.

(2) The royalty rates for comparable technology.

(7) The duration of patent and license terms.

(8) The profitability and commercial success of the invention.

(9) The utility and advantages of the invention over prior art.

(10) The nature, character, and benefits of use.

(11) The extent and value of infringing use.

(13) The portion of realizable profits creditable to the invention alone.

(14) Expert testimony on royalty rates.

(15) The totality of other intangibles impacting a hypothetical

negotiation between a willing licensor and licensee.

In considering how these factors should influence the hypothetical

negotiation, the court may consider facts that post-date the time of the

negotiation. Sinclair Refining Co. v. Jenkins Petroleum Process Co., 289

U.S. 689, 698 (1933). The Supreme Court termed these facts “the book of

wisdom” and cautioned that courts should not ignore them. Id. These relieve

some of the artificiality inherent in the exercise by tethering what is

otherwise a pure hypothetical to reality.

In considering these factors, we are mindful that the benefits claimed

must be attributable to the patented method, which is to say that we must be

able to differentiate between the specific improvement of the claimed method

and other non-patented features that may otherwise also contributed to the

benefits ascribed to the patent. FastShip, LLC v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl.

592, 625 (2017), aff’d as modified, 892 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

(“Damages are apportioned based on the ‘smallest salable patent-practicing

51

unit’ within the infringing article, meaning those features within the scope of

the claimed invention.”) (citing LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer,

Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 67 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). While this is less of a concern here

because we are confronted with a method patent rather than an improvement

to a complicated piece of existing technology, it is nevertheless the case that

some of the enthusiasm expressed about the ‘460 method was attributable to

non-patented changes to screening lanes. That caution is particularly

applicable to Georgia Pacific factors 10 and 13.

1. Factors 1 and 2: Established Royalty and Comparable

License Rates

The place to begin is any evidence of what the licensor agreed to in

the real world. The Georgia Pacific court captured this inquiry in its first

two, related, factors. The first is “[t]he royalties received by the patentee for

the licensing of the patent in suit, proving or tending to prove an established

royalty.” Ga.-Pac. Corp., 318 F. Supp. at 1120. The second is “[t]he rates

paid by the licensee for the use of other patents comparable to the patent in

suit.” Id. “This factor examines whether the licenses relied on by the

patentee in proving damages are sufficiently comparable to the hypothetical

license at issue in suit.” Lucent Techs., Inc., 580 F.3d at 1325.

Here, the only reference offered is plaintiff’s agreement with the

Adason Group to settle SecurityPoint’s infringement suit. Defendant objects,

arguing that the Adason agreement is not analogous because it was neither a

license agreement nor was it a commercial transaction in the normal sense.

Although not perfectly analogous, we find that the Adason agreement

provides a starting point.

As mentioned earlier, Adason responded to TSA’s Bin Advertising

Program solicitation and was successful in participating in that program at

five airports in 2007. After SecurityPoint sued Adason,29 the parties entered

into a settlement in September 2007, whereby Adason agreed to pay

SecurityPoint $650,000, and agreed to market SecurityPoint’s system for

advertising as, in essence, a broker for plaintiff. That plan was not ultimately

followed, however, because Adason went out of business. It paid roughly

half of the settlement amount before going under. Although there was no

running royalty adopted for future use, Mr. Hosfield calculated what he

believed was an equivalent royalty rate of $0.063 per-passenger by dividing

29

The suit was not limited to patent infringement. Plaintiff alleged five

counts, including false advertising and violations of the Lanham Act.

52

Adason’s total settlement of $650,000 by the 10.3 million passengers

screened at those five airports during the period of the Adason agreement.30

According to plaintiff, during a hypothetical negotiation (using the

“book of wisdom” to account for the Adason negotiations fourteen months

later), the parties would have taken into account the $0.063 per-passenger

royalty rate of the Adason agreement because it is the only comparable

license. Plaintiff reasons that TSA would have agreed to pay more than

Adason paid because TSA received more benefits from the ‘460 patent than

Adason. Adason was a private advertising company which only benefitted

from placing ads on the trays, and not from improved security, increased

passenger throughput, reduced TSO injuries, and reduced staffing.

Moreover, Adason was in financial distress, and could not have paid more

than $0.063 per passenger. Plaintiff thus argues that Adason’s royalty rate

should be a floor.

Defendant, on the other hand, believes the Adason example to be

inapposite because it was not a running royalty license, was entered into to

end litigation that included claims other than patent infringement, was

between competitors in the market—unlike TSA and SecurityPoint—and set

the terms for a future business relationship. The government also believes

Mr. Malackowski’s reverse engineering of the rate to be flawed because it

did not take into account any infringement that Adason undertook prior to

2007.

We disagree with the government’s complete rejection of the

relevance of the Adason payment. Adason, like TSA, infringed the ‘460

patent. Both would have been incentivized to enter into negotiations to deal

with assertions of infringement. The fact that Adason was only able to pay

$300,000 before declaring bankruptcy, we view as not undercutting the

legitimacy of the use of the $650,000 figure, which, barring evidence of

deceit (none was offered), represents the result of arms-length negotiations.

Moreover, any higher royalty would have jeopardized Adason’s

solvency. This factor would have put a downward pressure on a settlement

figure. As Mr. Hosfield testified:

30

The Adason agreement was not just a payment for past infringement. The

parties agreed to an ongoing business relationship. While the terms of that

deal became irrelevant due to Adason’s insolvency, the intent to enter a

mutually beneficial arrangement for the future lends credence to plaintiff’s

position that it would have pushed for a running royalty.

53

What they agreed to pay and, in fact . . . as I recall, what they

told SecurityPoint was this is what we can pay; anything above

that would force us into bankruptcy. So that’s the amount that

they agreed to. What that tells us . . . is that if Adason’s

financial condition were better, SecurityPoint might not have

agreed to such a low number; however, that’s the agreement

they made, and that’s what they agreed to accept, and that’s

what I determined.

Tr. 1657:3-13. (emphasis added).

Mr. Malackowski agreed with Mr. Hosfield’s assessment:

I believe the Adason agreement is lower than an agreement

with the TSA, all else being equal, because, first, there’s the

financial duress that we’ve talked about that drove it down, but

second, Adason was receiving no benefit to this invention

except the ability to sell advertising, which is valuable, but the

TSA receives significantly greater benefits related to the

passenger throughput and all of the labor savings and reduced

injuries and other economics that exceed anything that Adason

would have ever been able to achieve.

Tr. 1854:8-18. (emphasis added).

We reject as well, however, plaintiff’s argument that the Adason

figure becomes a floor. While an equivalent royalty rate can be derived from

a lump sum payment, nevertheless, the parties used a lump sum payment and

not a running royalty. We agree with the government that the dynamics of a

decision to foreclose future use of a patent and close out litigation is different

than opening the door to ongoing payments over potentially a 17-year period.

Constructing an artificial equivalent royalty under those circumstances

strikes us as camouflaging the independent incentives to end the

infringement and the litigation. We do not know what the parties would have

agreed to by way of a running royalty and we do not know whether releasing

non-patent infringement claims had any financial weight for Adason. We

also cannot ignore the fact that Adason had been infringing for the purpose

of making money. Plaintiff’s demand would have sought to capture some of

those advertising receipts, something of no interest to TSA.

In sum, as the only evidence of anything that looks like a payment for

infringement, the Adason settlement is certainly relevant. However, we

54

decline to treat the constructed royalty as a floor. We use it as a factor in

constructing the appropriate royalty.

2. Factor 7: Patent Duration/License Term

The duration of the hypothetic license is also relevant to the parties’

bargaining positions. This is the seventh Georgia–Pacific factor. 318 F.

Supp. at 1120. The term of the license is assumed to be the remaining life of

the patent. Plaintiff’s expert, Mr. Malackowski recognized that this factor

operates in the government’s favor:

Once we determine that it’s going to be a running royalty,

because it’s such a long period of time, the TSA is going to

push hard to say that we have to make it very reasonable, . . .

lower rather than higher. And so I give them the benefit of the

doubt . . . . [Y]es, I believe the term of the license -- in

particular, 18 years -- matched to this industry and the

uncertainty of future innovation would result in a running

royalty to account for anything like ASLs, and it would teach

away from a lump sum.

Tr. 1868:11-1869:8.

We agree that the long remaining life of the patent would push the

negotiation toward a running royalty, and a lower one. TSA would have

opted for a running royalty in the hope of a coming up with an alternative

method in the future, but concern that, if it was unsuccessful, it would end

up paying a royalty for all 17 years remaining on the patent would give it a

strong incentive to agree to only a small royalty.

3. Factor 8: Profitability, Commercial Success, and Popularity

The eighth Georgia–Pacific factor is “[t]he established profitability

of the product made under the patent, its commercial success; and its current

popularity.” 318 F. Supp. at 1120. The focus here is on the success of the

patented methodology from the patent holder’s perspective. On the one

hand, there is no question that SecurityPoint developed a successful business

model for turning access to security lanes into advertising revenue. It is also

true, on the other, that it obtained that access by offering, not just a method

to improve efficiency and safety at screening lanes, but free equipment.

From 2008 through 2017, it realized a total of $45.93 million in ad revenue

from more than 40 airports throughout the United States. TSA’s imposition

of a requirement that airport operators sign an MOU indemnifying TSA for

55

possible patent violations, along with its opening up to plaintiff’s competitors

the opportunity to offer the same system, put substantial constraints on

plaintiff’s ability to capitalize on its method.

Insofar as this factor can be separated from the parties’ relevant

bargaining positions, we agree with the government that this factor is neutral

in calculating a royalty. TSA is not an advertising broker. The success of

plaintiff’s endeavors to date is not tied strictly to the patent’s method.

Further, the hypothetical running royalty is not an effort to calculate profits

lost to plaintiff.31 The fact that plaintiff could have made even more money

with unfettered access to airports is irrelevant to what the parties would have

negotiated for use of the method only, which would not necessarily have

resulted in ad revenues to plaintiff and which required TSA to furnish its own

equipment. We find plaintiff’s business success not directly relevant to the

circumstances assumed in a hypothetical negotiation.

4. Factors 9 and 10: Advantages of the Invention and the

Nature, Commercialization, and Benefits of the Claimed

Invention

The next two interrelated inquiries consider the benefits provided by

the patent, especially over what was known in the field prior to the invention,

and “the character of the commercial embodiment of it as owned and

produced by the licensor.” Ga.-Pac. Corp., 318 F. Supp. at 1120. These are

the ninth and tenth Georgia Pacific factors, which are often considered in

tandem.

Plaintiff offers four areas of benefit to the government provided by its

method: 1) enhanced security; 2) passenger time savings; 3) reduced TSO

injuries; and 4) that the patent enabled TSA to employ fewer TSOs. The

common denominator in asserted benefits 1, 2, and 4 is that the patented

method involves less clutter and is more efficient in terms of cart movement

and accelerated passenger throughput, an assertion we accept as proved. This

efficiency also meant less effort expended on moving trays, resulting in

fewer repetitive stress injuries for TSOs.

31

Taxpayers can only scratch their heads over TSA’s unwillingness to take

up plaintiff’s offer in 2005 to furnish, not only the patented method, but trays

and carts at no cost. Plaintiff could have implemented its model and the

government would not have to pay damages for infringement.

56

Defendant, on the other hand, asserts that factors 9 and 10, are less

relevant to a § 1498 inquiry because consideration of the alleged benefits of

the patent are disfavored, citing Dow Chemical Co., which held that “[t]he

proper measure [of damages] is what the [patent] owner has lost, not what

the taker has gained. Dow Chem. Co. United States, 226 F.3d 1334, 1348

(Fed. Cir. 2000) (alterations in original). This appears to be based on a

concern that § 1498 actions amount to an uncompensated Fifth Amendment

taking, in which the value of what is taken is relevant, not the benefit to the

government. While we appreciate that as a theoretical constraint, we do not

view Dow as a bar to evaluating the motivations to the government in a

theoretical negotiation, so long as the benefits are not speculative.

The benefits offered by the invention are thus relevant to the

hypothetical negotiation, but only in so far as they are established

improvements over TSA’s prior modes of managing trays and carts. The

focus here is on TSA’s incentives to pay to be able to use the patent because

of the benefits it obtained. We must therefore apportion the benefits between

those provided by the patent’s method and any that were the result of non-

patented elements or other unrelated events. In the context of an invention

that is a smaller part that is then used in a larger system, as in FastShip, LLC

v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 592 (2017), aff’d as modified, 892 F.3d 1298

(Fed. Cir. 2018), “[d]amages are apportioned based on the ‘smallest salable

patent-practicing unit’ within the infringing article, meaning those features

within the scope of the claimed invention.” Id. at 625 (citing LaserDynamics,

Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 67 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also

Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

(“[T]he governing rule is that the ultimate combination of royalty base and

royalty rate must reflect the value attributable to the infringing features of

the product, and no more.”).

Here, however, we are looking at a method patent which offers a novel

but complete and integrated set of steps. Each step is necessary. The fact

that none of the equipment used was novel should not detract from the

novelty of the method as a whole. We are aware of the need for

apportionment—the same consideration comes up in dealing with factor

13—but we view it as having limited application here, except with respect to

scrutinizing the benefits highlighted by plaintiff.

a. Enhanced Security

There is no question that airport and passenger security is TSA’s

mission. Nor is there any question that the ‘460 patent relates to this mission

57

by increasing efficiency at checkpoints.32 Mr. Hosfield testified that the

patented method “reduce[s] the distractions caused by the need for screening

officers to perform job duties amidst the stress and strain of congested and

disorganized checkpoints.” Tr. 1298:16-19. This sentiment was echoed

publicly by TSA spokesperson Nico Melendez, who said that the ‘460

methods “allows us to do our jobs more effectively and provide more

security.” PX 1125 (Washington Post Article on ads being tested in LAX

airport security trays). This is accomplished primarily, as explained by Mr.

Hosfield, by reducing the time spent by TSOs returning trays to the non-

sterile side of SSCPs. Thus, the TSOs can spend more time on security-

related tasks.

In addition, Dr. Jacobson testified that improving throughput at

security checkpoints, something discussed in more detail below, reduces

passenger wait times, resulting in shorter queues and smaller crowds on the

non-sterile side of the airport check-in area. He explained that crowding at

checkpoints creates security risks. This was supported by testimony of TSA

Administrator Peter Neffenger at a Senate Committee on Homeland Security

and Governmental Affairs hearing. Mr. Neffenger stated that delays at

airport security screening checkpoints are “unacceptable, primarily because

the convergence of large crowds in public spaces can create a security risk .

. . . TSA has worked diligently to address passenger volume growth, and the

delays . . . at checkpoints.” PX 539 at 24 (Malackowski report) (quoting

“Written testimony of TSA Administrator Peter Neffenger for a Senate

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing titled

‘Frustrated Travelers: Rethinking TSA Operations to Improve Passenger

Screening and Address Threats to Aviation’,” U.S. Department of Homeland

Security, June 7, 2016.).

We are persuaded that the patented method contributed substantially

to improved security. How much, however, is a consideration we reserve

until dealing with defendant’s contention that plaintiff failed to apportion

damages to distinguish improvements tied to the ‘460 patent versus non-

patented features.

32

The USPTO, in its determination to make special, stated that the ‘460

Patent “directly contributes to the countering of terrorism.” PX 9 at 1 (PTO

Decision on plaintiff’s Petition to Make Special the ‘460 Patent).

58

b. Passenger Time Savings

Several TSA documents state that passenger experience and wait

times are important to TSA. TSA’s staffing model is “designed to calculate

the necessary level of TSOs to ensure security and minimize wait times.” PX

1175 at 5 (GAO Aviation Security: TSA’s Staffing Allocation Model, GAO-

07-299). The CDGs, moreover, state that SSCPs should be optimized to

“increas[e] throughput” and “improv[e] passenger customer service.” E.g.,

PX 1371 at 8 (TSA 2014 CDG).

Reducing wait times was a priority for TSA, as Mr. Arroyo attested,

having witnessed the disorganized checkpoint lines prior to the ‘460’s

implementation:

It got so chaotic -- I can speak for Newark personally because

I witnessed it and experienced it and received many of the

complaints -- where the queueing lines were so backed up that

they congested the concession stands, the entire operation. The

lines were and people with their carry-on items were blocking

the escalators that ramped up to the point where escalators had

an emergency stop because people were -- there was no place

to go, and they were falling on each other. So it was a really

chaotic situation that we had to address immediately.

Tr. 693:17-694:2.

Much of plaintiff’s proof of the efficiencies gained by its method

comes from TSA’s description of the success of the test run at LAX. Mr.

Melendez, a TSA spokesperson, attributed, at least in-part, a 90-second

reduction in passenger wait times at LAX during the test period to the ‘460

patent, resulting in a 16% reduction in wait times. PX 1123 (“Ad Pitches

Target Captive Audience,” by Jeff Thomas, Mercury News, January 10,

2007). A September 5, 2006 letter from Lawrence Fetters, FSD at LAX,

concluded that the patented method “helped streamline the screening process

and increase throughput.” PX 754 at 1 (Lawrence Fetters’ letter to Lydia

Kennard, dated September 5, 2006). According to Ronald Shields, former

Program Analyst for TSA, the patented method also helped streamline the

screening process and increase throughput. PX 1209 at 187 (Shields Dep.).

In order to capture these time savings and express their value in

dollars, plaintiff offered the testimony of Dr. Jacobson. He put together an

elaborate presentation, heavily dependent on the 90-second savings figure

from the LAX test. He melded that with figures obtained from a 2013 report

59

of The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, a third-

party, government-supported source, which attempted to calculate the value

to passengers of wait times in different areas at airports. That report

concluded that passengers valued check-in and security time at $32/hour

($37.20/hour for business travelers and $28.45/hour for leisure travelers). PX

1239 at 7 (Passenger Value of Time Vol. 1, Transportation Research Board

of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine).

Applying those hourly figures to the 90-second savings touted from the LAX

pilot program results in a calculus of that savings’ value.

Recognizing that the 90-second figure was from one airport and

reflected heightened savings due to the holiday period, Dr. Jacobson

attempted to come up with comparable figures for other airports at other

times. He proposed a range of $0.10 to $0.50 per passenger. It is

unnecessary to examine his methodology in detail. We agree with defendant

that the exercise creates a false sense of accuracy.

We have fundamental concerns about the constituent elements of Dr.

Jacobson’s calculus. First, the 90-second figure is drawn from one airport

and represents a brief period of time. Even Dr. Jacobson conceded that,

because the testing was done at the peak 2005 Thanksgiving season, he had

to make an adjustment to the figures, but his 10 to 50 cent per passenger

range appears more like a guess than the product of considered analysis. In

addition, we agree with defendant that a dose of skepticism about TSA’s

reaction is warranted in view of the predictable enthusiasm that would be

associated with receipt of free equipment.

In fact, Mr. Melendez qualified his statement concerning the “90-

second” reduction:

The longest checkpoint wait times for last holiday season

dropped by 90 seconds to seven minutes from a year earlier,

said spokesman Nico Melendez, though he acknowledged any

number of variables could have cut the time.

PX 1126 at 1 (News article from TampaBay.com) (emphasis added). The

reference to “any number of variables” probably refers to other efficiencies

employed at SSCPs around that time, including ergonomically correct

equipment and a $15 million dollar remodel of the LAX checkpoints. See

PX 84 at 2 (TSA Information Bulletin) (“The new checkpoint configurations

at LAX have resulted in significantly longer divestiture and re-composure

space for the traveling public. Furthermore, divesting tables are installed to

60

x-ray height . . . These improvements have had a positive impact on reducing

wait times at LAX.”).

As defendant’s expert, Mr. McGavock, correctly observed, “longer

divestiture and recomposure space and x-ray height tables are not elements

of the SecureTray® System that are covered by the claims of the patent-in-

suit.” DX 1664 ¶ 157 (McGavock Report). Even plaintiff’s expert Mr.

Malackowski acknowledged that the “SecureTray® System” provided to

LAX included custom-fitted, stainless steel “ergonomically designed

divesture and recomposing tables” which improved efficiencies at the

checkpoint. PX 538 at 10; see also PX 159 at 27 (TSA’s 2009 CDG)

(“Implementation of these tables will increase sequencing efficiency through

the checkpoint.”). Mr. Arroyo also conceded that improvements to divesting

tables was expected to increase checkpoint throughput.

Defendant also points out that some of the lane configurations at LAX

changed during this time to use one scanner for two lanes. This had the effect

of minimizing wasted passenger wait time. Mr. Thaxton memorialized these

efforts in a spring 2006 report. DX 1778 (Trip report from a visit to Los

Angeles in 2006). He testified that the optimization changes “drove down

some of the wait time conditions.”33 Tr. 2123:20.

In short, the 90-second savings figure, which serves as the backbone

of Jacobson’s monetary calculus, is highly problematic. It does not account

for the non-patented changes at LAX and elsewhere. In addition, we view

the report of The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine

with respect to how passengers value their time in checkout lanes as

inherently subjective. Further, Dr. Jacobson’s reliance on those numbers

assumes a one-to-one correspondence between how passengers value their

time and how TSA would have valued time savings. While TSA has every

incentive to keep passengers happy, we decline to simply apply these

numbers as if they had objective weight.

We have no doubt that TSA’s use of the patent triggered an important

consequence—reduced passenger wait times and increased throughput—

which had an associated advantage in improving security. We also believe

that TSA would have been willing to pay to achieve increased security,

efficiency, and happier passengers. We are not, however, persuaded by Dr.

33

Similar efficiency results were achieved in Dallas (DFW) in 2005 unrelated

to the patent. See DX 1543 at 17 (Tiger Team 2005 Security Checkpoints

Report).

61

Jacobson’s per-passenger time saving model that this phenomenon should be

valued at $0.10 to $0.50 per passenger.

c. Reduced TSO Injuries

Before implementing the claimed methods of the ‘460 patent, the

standard practice of moving bins was hand-carrying and lifting by TSOs. In

2003, TSA had the highest injury and illness rate among federal agencies at

19.4%, while the average injury and illness rate for all federal workers was

5.5%. PX 1218 (AP article, March 3, 2004). That TSA recognized the

correlation between hand-carrying bins and TSO injuries is apparent from

the 2006 Design Guide, which states: “Lifting and carrying of bins by TSOs

is known to be a significant injury risk and should be eliminated if possible.”

PX 1193 at 16. A February 2007 GAO Report on TSA Staffing Models

states that “TSO injuries were a significant drain [on TSA] workforce.” PX

1175 at 56. Mr. Malackowski also opined that lack of standardization added

to injury levels.

In response to on-the-job injuries, TSA stated that it no longer

endorsed hand-carrying of bins by TSOs:

Bin carts are similar to a hand cart or dolly to transport a large

number of bins without requiring excessive lifting or carrying

by a TSA agent . . . In the past, bin cart transport by TSOs was

a primary cause of on-the-job injuries. Hand-carrying of bins

is no longer endorsed by TSA.

PX 1172 at 26 (TSA 2009 CDG). The ‘460 system, by eliminating the hand

carrying of trays, would have had a beneficial impact on reducing TSO

injuries. This is confirmed by a TSA press release, which reported that injury

rates were reduced by 90% following implementation of the ‘460 method

during the pilot program at LAX. PX 84 at 2. A June 12, 2007 TSA e-mail

provided similar support: “Since LAX has optimized the checkpoints

including the transition to using the bin carts, we have reduced our [workers’

compensation claims] by at least 65%.” PX 1191 at 1.

Mr. Hosfield analyzed data related to fewer TSO injuries in order to

calculate a per-passenger cost savings to TSA. He concluded that TSA

avoided 6,855 lost time events through use of the ‘460 patent from 2008

through 2018. After subtracting Air Marshal injury cases, he also came up

with an average workers’ compensation cost per TSA injury for each year.

Using those numbers, he calculated a per passenger savings attributed to

reduced injuries. He concludes that the cost savings from fewer TSO injuries

62

from the ‘460 method results in another positive economic indicator of

$0.007 per passenger.

Mr. McGavock, defendant’s expert, conceded Mr. Hosfield’s overall

point, agreeing that injury reduction is a solid economic indicator: “I think

the injury rate statistic is probably the most solid in terms of the difference

between hand carrying and the two-cart method in terms of quantifying [a

royalty].” Tr. 3081:10-13. He went on, however, to criticize Mr. Hosfield’s

numbers. Mr. McGavock testified that, “what I tried to do is apportion using

actual data and empirical data before and after use of the patented method to

apportion down to bin-related injuries, which would be closer to the value

associated with the patented invention.” Tr. 2984:24-2985:3. He determined

that, when the injury reduction value is corrected to specifically analyze bin-

related injuries as opposed to any type of injury at checkpoints, the value

would be reduced from $0.007 per passenger to $0.001:

I did the same type of math that Mr. Hosfield did to determine

a but-for lost time cases, subtract actual time cases, to get what

the implied savings were in terms of reduced injuries. So it’s

interesting, when you look at just bin-related injuries, there’s a

58 percent adjustment, but bin injuries are only a small percent

of total checkpoint injuries, whereas [Hosfield] just applied

this whole percent to total checkpoint injuries. So that’s a long

way of saying what I tried to do is apportion using actual data

and empirical data . . .”

Tr. 2985:15-25 (emphasis added). In other words, Mr. McGavock did a

similar calculus but limited his inputs to those injuries attributed to bins,

which would have been the injuries most likely to have been reduced by the

use of plaintiff’s method. We find that reduced injuries is a relevant factor in

determining a royalty, as both parties acknowledge, although we find

defendant’s argument as to the valuation of that factor more persuasive.

d. Reduction in TSO Staffing

SecurityPoint contends that TSA was able to hire fewer TSOs after it

implemented the ‘460 patent. Mr. Hosfield was the expert responsible for

calculating these savings. He relied on the following inputs: the number of

hours worked annually by TSOs, the average cost per hour to maintain a

TSO, and total passenger throughput. Against these, he applied a percentage

reduction in the number of TSO hours which he attributes to use of the

patented method.

63

That percentage, of course, is critical. He derives the number from

two reports. The first is the December 2006 TSA Information Bulletin

summarizing the SecurityPoint pilot at LAX: “bin return carts reduce the

frequency of moving bins from the sterile to non-sterile side by 80%.” PX

84 at 2. Secondary support for this number comes from The Safe Skies study,

which showed that there was an 84-90% reduction in tray movements using

the ‘460 patent. See PX 1149 at 14. It also comes from an internal TSA

memorandum which states: “Preliminary results of the pilot indicate

favorable results due to the consistent and unlimited equipment supplies for

each lane. This includes reduction of time for current screener (manual) bin

return . . . [B]in reruns have been reduced drastically.” PX 607 at 2. Mr.

Shields also testified that the use of carts allowed TSOs to move more trays

at a time, and he agreed that it “reduced drastically” tray reruns and led to a

“reduction of time for current screener.” PX 1209 at 60 (Shields Dep.).

The second critical piece in deriving a percentage savings was drawn

from the 2005 Cambria study, prepared for TSA, which analyzed the benefits

of potentially using an automated conveyor system. As part of that study, it

was determined that a TSO stationed at the recompose area of the checkpoint

(an “exit floater”) spent 34-35% of his time on tray management. PX 1122

at 6. Mr. Hosfield then applied these two percentages—80% fewer TSO

movements and 34% of an exit floater’s time—to come up with a 27.2%

reduction in TSO hours due to use of the patent. He then converted that into

a .41 Full-Time Equivalent (employee) savings per lane, resulting in a total

of 532 to 696 TSOs fewer per year for a total cost savings to TSA of

$510,774,633, which converts to a $0.075 cost savings per passenger.

We agree that the overall point is well taken. There no doubt were far

fewer trips back and forth for TSOs, and that had value for TSA in terms of

less work pressure and fewer distractions for TSOs and perhaps fewer hires.

What we cannot accept at face value are Mr. Hosfield’s numbers. It assumes

a frictionless conversion of fewer motions into fewer employees. As Mr.

Hosfield conceded, the best evidence of his hypothesis would have been an

actual decline in TSOs employed. In that regard, Mr. Hosfield’s export

report indicates a reduction in TSOs with job titles related to checkpoint

security from 2008 to 2017 but also recognizes that total TSOs employed

increased during the period.34

34

He also claimed that, regardless of the actual number of persons employed,

TSA reaped the benefit of having more time available to TSOs for security-

related functions as a result of the patented me

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.