From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Waite v. United States

U.S.
Feb 24, 1931
282 U.S. 508 (1931)

Summary

holding that where patent owner had been awarded unliquidated damages for patent infringement in the form of lost profits, an award of prejudgment interest was necessary "to make the compensation `entire'" and to ensure "complete justice" between the parties

Summary of this case from Federal Marketing v. Virginia Imp. Prod

Opinion

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

No. 103.

Submitted January 30, 1931. Decided February 24, 1931.

Under the Act of July 1, 1918, which gives a remedy against the United States for the unlicensed use of a patented invention, and provides that compensation to the owners in such cases shall be reasonable and "entire," interest on the amount of the damages should be allowed. P. 509. 69 Ct. Cls. 153, reversed.

CERTIORARI, post, p. 817, to review a judgment of the Court of Claims disallowing interest in a suit against the United States for unlicensed use of a patent.

Messrs. O. Ellery Edwards and Hyman M. Goldstein were on the brief for petitioner.

Solicitor General Thacher, Assistant Attorney General Rugg, and Mr. H. Brian Holland were on the brief for the United States. They conceded that interest should have been allowed.


This is a suit under the Act of July 1, 1918, c. 114, 40 Stat. 704, 705; U.S. Code, Title 35, § 68, to recover for the unlicensed use of a patented invention. The liability of the United States is established by the findings of the Court of Claims and is not disputed. Neither is there any dispute that the profits that the plaintiff would have made are a proper measure of the damages suffered. The Court of Claims, however, ruled that interest should not be allowed upon the amount so fixed, and a writ of certiorari was granted by this Court upon that question.

The Government, without formally confessing error, states its belief that interest should have been allowed. The statute grants `recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use.' We are of opinion that interest should be allowed in order to make the compensation `entire.' In addition to the purpose of the word, adverted to in Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. United States, 275 U.S. 331, 343, we cannot doubt that it was intended to accomplish complete justice as between the plaintiff and the United States. See Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 299. Brooks-Scanlon Corp. v. United States, 265 U.S. 106. Liggett Myers Tobacco Co. v. United States, 274 U.S. 215. Phelps v. United States, 274 U.S. 341.

Judgment reversed.


Summaries of

Waite v. United States

U.S.
Feb 24, 1931
282 U.S. 508 (1931)

holding that where patent owner had been awarded unliquidated damages for patent infringement in the form of lost profits, an award of prejudgment interest was necessary "to make the compensation `entire'" and to ensure "complete justice" between the parties

Summary of this case from Federal Marketing v. Virginia Imp. Prod

In Waite v. United States (1931), 282 U.S. 508, 51 S.Ct. 227, 75 L.Ed. 494, the Court ruled upon what constituted "entire" compensation to a party whose patented invention had been used by the government without authorization.

Summary of this case from Orr v. Sonnenburg
Case details for

Waite v. United States

Case Details

Full title:WAITE v . UNITED STATES

Court:U.S.

Date published: Feb 24, 1931

Citations

282 U.S. 508 (1931)
51 S. Ct. 227

Citing Cases

Pitcairn v. United States

* * * The theory underlying a patent suit in this court pursuant to that section [1498] is that the…

Monessen Southwestern R. Co. v. Morgan

JUSTICE BLACKMUN'S dissent does not recognize the obvious difference between the instant case and previous…