Sheppard Mullin Secures Landmark $170.6 Million Damages Award for SecurityPoint Holdings
A Sheppard Mullin trial team led by Intellectual Property partner Brad Graveline obtained a final judgment representing the largest reported patent infringement damages award against the United States for client, SecurityPoint Holdings, Inc (SecurityPoint).
On May 2, 2025, the United States Court of Federal Claims issued a final judgment in favor of SecurityPoint. This includes a substantial monetary award of $170,647,991 million in damages and delay compensation for the United States’ unauthorized use of SecurityPoint’s U.S. Patent No. 6,888,460, which covers a method of moving and processing trays with carts in airport security screening checkpoints. The final judgment follows the United States Court of Federal Claims opinions issued in 2016 (affirming the validity of the patent), in 2021 (awarding SecurityPoint more than $100 million in damages for TSA’s infringement at Cat X and I airports), and in 2024 (awarding SecurityPoint more than $10 million for TSA’s infringement at Cat II airports).
In the 2021 damages opinion, the Court held that, beginning “no later than January 1, 2008, TSA universally adopted plaintiff’s patented method as its default means for screening at all Category X and Category I airports and thereby, with certain exceptions later adopted, infringed plaintiff’s patent. Plaintiff is owed a royalty, plus interest, through the date of the judgment as compensation for TSA’s unauthorized use of its method.”
Sheppard Mullin partner Brad Graveline, lead counsel for SecurityPoint, stated, “We are pleased with the final judgment. It affirms the validity of SecurityPoint's intellectual property. The court's ruling not only vindicates our position but also serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of respecting intellectual property rights, especially those belonging to small businesses that drive innovation.”
The Sheppard Mullin trial team also included partner Yasamin Parsafar and associates Mike Hopkins and Takuma Nishimura.
The Court’s opinions and judgment are available here: