IBM from asserting just such a defense. After carefully reviewing the procedural history up to this point, as well as the briefs on both sides, I find that TM would not be prejudiced if IBM were allowed to amend its answer to assert a § 1498 affirmative defense, even though discovery has long since closed. Frankly, I find TM’s assertion that it would have altered its discovery strategy had it been made aware of IBM’s assertion of a § 1498 affirmative defense to be ludicrous. We are not talking about an issue of infringement, but of damages. IBM can proffer an accounting for its Government sales at the same time it files its amended answer, which shall be within 30 days of the date of this opinion. .Ed.2d 692 (1969); Bereslavsky v. Esso Standard Oil Co., 175 F.2d 148 (4th Cir.1949) (<HOLDING>); Croydon Co., Inc. v. Unique Furnishings,
holding that the federal district courts dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims deprived the court of its jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims arising from the same incident holding that the court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute holding that claims arising under the sixth amendment fall outside the jurisdiction of the court of federal claims holding that given the version of  1498 then in place the governments authorization and consent to allegedly infringing manufacture formed a basis for a transfer of jurisdiction from the district court to the court of claims now the court of federal claims holding that the accused item was used by the government under an older version of  1498 and that therefore the only remedy was a suit against the united states in the court of claims now the court of federal claims