with direct infringement — i.e., “use of an invention -that, if done by a private party, would directly infringe the patent.” Id. at 1323. Liability under this provision, like liability under § 271(a),'re-quires a showing'that “each limitation is present in the accused product or process,” such that the government “would be liable for direct infringement of the patent right for such use or manufacture if [it] was a private party.” Id. at 1319 (emphasis added). Accordingly, § 1498 encompasses “any direct infringement that would normally require a license by a private party.” Id. at 1320. Infringement is a prerequisite to § 1498(a) liability; the government’s infringement triggers its obligation to pay just compensation. See James v. Campbell, 104 U.S. 356, 357-58; 26 L.Ed. 786 (1881) (<HOLDING>); see also Crozier v. Fried Krupp
holding that a termination of a government contract does not constitute a taking of the plaintiffs property without just compensation or without due process of law holding that a patentee can collect only one royalty from a patent infringement holding a technical term used in a patent document is interpreted as having the meaning that it would be given by persons experienced in the field of the invention unless it is apparent from the patent and the prosecution history that the inventor used the term with a different meaning holding that an assignment or sale of rights in the invention and potential patent rights is not a sale of the invention within the meaning of section 102b holding that a patent confers upon the patentee an exclusive property in the patented invention which cannot be appropriated or used by the government itself without just compensation