Yes, a jury could find Travel Sentry legally responsible. Even without a strict contract, Travel Sentry created a system where the TSA could only get the benefit—opening bags easily without breaking them—by following the final steps of the patented method. Travel Sentry provided the special keys, the recognizable logo on the locks, and the training. By doing this, Travel Sentry 'directed' the TSA's actions because it controlled the only way the TSA could get the desired result. The lower court was wrong to think 'control' requires a boss-employee relationship or a binding contract.

Yes, a reasonable jury could find Travel Sentry does have enough control over what TSA does to be responsible. Travel Sentry requires TSA to use the special keys and follow certain steps if TSA wants to get the benefits of easily searching bags with Travel Sentry locks. The only way TSA can unlock Travel Sentry locks is by doing the exact steps in the patent using the tools Travel Sentry gave them. Travel Sentry also sets out how TSA should do this through their agreement, instructions, and lock design. So there are factual issues that need to be decided by a jury about whether Travel Sentry is controlling TSA's actions enough to be liable for infringement.

Yes, a defendant can be found liable for direct infringement under § 271(a) when it conditions a third party's receipt of a benefit upon the performance of patented method steps and establishes the manner of that performance. The district court erred by interpreting the standard for divided infringement from Akamai V too narrowly. Attribution is not limited to formal agency or contractual relationships; it exists where a defendant sets up a system where a third party can only obtain a desired benefit by performing specific method steps as instructed by the defendant. Here, the 'benefit' for the TSA was the ability to open locked luggage without breaking it, and it could only receive this benefit by performing the final claim steps (identifying the lock and using the master key) using the tools and system Travel Sentry provided. By providing the passkeys, the identifying mark, and the training, Travel Sentry established the 'manner' of the TSA's performance, creating a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether it directed or controlled the TSA's actions.

Yes, there are genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Travel Sentry directs or controls TSA's performance of the final two claim steps. A reasonable jury could conclude that Travel Sentry conditions TSA's participation in the correctly defined activity of screening luggage with Travel Sentry locks or receipt of the benefits that flow from such screening on TSA's performance of these steps. This is because Travel Sentry supplied TSA with passkeys and training that enable TSA to screen luggage with Travel Sentry locks, and the relevant 'activity' is coextensive with the final two claim steps. Similarly, the benefits TSA allegedly receives from identifying and opening Travel Sentry locks can only be realized if TSA performs these steps. A reasonable jury could also find that Travel Sentry establishes the manner of TSA's performance by entering into the MOU, providing passkeys and training materials, and controlling the design of the locks and keys. The district court erred in concluding Akamai V's two-prong test could not be satisfied as a matter of law on the undisputed facts of this case.

Travel Sentry, Inc. v. David Tropp

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot