Legal Definitions - authorization clause

The authorization clause (sometimes called the consent clause) is a specific provision within U.S. patent law. It states that if an individual or company uses or manufactures something protected by a valid U.S. patent, but does so while acting on behalf of the U.S. government and with the government's explicit authorization or consent, then the U.S. government itself is considered the party responsible for the patent infringement. This means that the patent owner cannot sue the individual or company directly for infringement. Instead, their only legal recourse is to sue the U.S. government (typically in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims) to seek fair compensation for the use of their patented invention.

Here are some examples illustrating how the authorization clause works:

• Military Equipment Manufacturing: Imagine a company, AeroDefense Systems, is awarded a contract by the U.S. Air Force to produce advanced drone technology. The contract's detailed specifications explicitly require AeroDefense Systems to incorporate a particular navigation system that, unbeknownst to the company, is protected by a patent held by Guidance Innovations Inc.

  In this scenario, AeroDefense Systems is using Guidance Innovations Inc.'s patented technology. However, because they are doing so on behalf of the U.S. government (the Air Force) and with the government's explicit authorization (as mandated by the contract specifications), the authorization clause applies. Guidance Innovations Inc. cannot sue AeroDefense Systems for patent infringement. Their only option is to sue the U.S. government for fair compensation for the use of their patented navigation system.

• Government-Funded Research Project: A private research institution, BioMed Labs, receives a federal grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop a new diagnostic tool for a specific disease. The grant terms and project guidelines from the NIH direct BioMed Labs to utilize a certain genetic sequencing technique, which happens to be patented by GeneScan Technologies.

  Here, BioMed Labs is employing a patented genetic sequencing technique. Since they are conducting this research for the U.S. government (NIH) and under the government's direct authorization (through the grant terms and guidelines), the authorization clause shifts liability. GeneScan Technologies cannot sue BioMed Labs directly. Instead, they must seek compensation from the U.S. government for the unauthorized use of their patented sequencing method.

• Federal Infrastructure Construction: A construction firm, MetroBuild Contractors, is hired by the Department of Transportation (DOT) to build a new federal highway interchange. The DOT's architectural blueprints and engineering specifications for the project mandate the use of a specific type of noise-reduction barrier, which is patented by QuietZone Solutions. MetroBuild Contractors installs these barriers as required by the government's plans.

  In this situation, MetroBuild Contractors is using QuietZone Solutions' patented noise-reduction technology. Because they are performing this work for the U.S. government (DOT) and with the government's authorization (as specified in the official project plans), the authorization clause applies. QuietZone Solutions' recourse for the patent infringement is against the U.S. government, not against MetroBuild Contractors. QuietZone Solutions would need to sue the U.S. government for compensation for the use of their patented barriers.