of non-liability on FastShip’s claims for patent infringement with regard to LCS-3, - 5, -7, -9, and -11. Def.’s Mot. at 1. This motion has now been thoroughly briefed and was argued at a hearing held on June 8, 2015. STANDARDS FOR DECISION A. A Claim Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 14.98(a) As explicated in 28 U.S.C. § 1498, the United States has waived sovereign immunity and granted this court exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate patent infringement claims against the federal government “[wjhenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same.” 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a); see also Martin v. United States, 99 Fed.Cl. 627, 632-33 (2011) (<HOLDING>). The statute further states, in relevant part,
holding that the tucker act gives the united states court of federal claims jurisdiction over cda claims only when a decision of the contracting officer has been issued under section 6 of the cda  holding that the claims court has no jurisdiction under the tucker act over claims to social security benefits recognizing that section 1498 rather than the tucker act 28 usc  1491a grants this court jurisdiction over patent infringement claims against the united states recognizing that the reference to the united states court of federal claims in section 1346a1 is merely a crossreference to the tucker act holding that the tucker act grants the united states court of federal claims jurisdiction to grant nonmonetary relief in connection with contractor claims including claims requesting an interpretation of contract terms