Crozier v. Krupp
224 U.S. 290 (1912)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Crozier v. Krupp, 224 U.S. 290 (1912)

Crozier v. Krupp

No. 8

Argued April 30, 1911

Decided April 8, 1912

224 U.S. 290

Syllabus

Prior to the passage of the Act of June 25, 1910, 36 Stat. 851, c. 423, a patentee whose patent was infringed by an officer of the United States could not sue the United States unless a contract to pay was implied, and the object of the statute is to afford a remedy under circumstances where no contract can be implied, but where the

Page 224 U. S. 291

property rights of the inventor have been appropriated by an officer of the United States for its benefit and the Acts of such officer ratified by the government by the adoption of such act.

Compensation for property taken under eminent domain need not necessarily be made in advance of the taking if adequate means be provided for a reasonably just and prompt ascertainment and payment thereof.

The duty to provide for payment of compensation for property taken under eminent domain may be adequately fulfilled by an assumption of such duty by a pledge, either express or by necessary implication, of the public good faith to that end.

The Act of June 25, 1910, having afforded a remedy for a patentee whose property rights have been appropriated by an officer of the United States for the benefit of the government, such patentee is entitled to maintain an action in the Court of Claims to have his compensation determined, and the statute makes full and adequate provisions for the exercise of power of eminent domain.

Since the enactment of the Act of June 25, 1910, a patentee cannot maintain an action for injunction against an officer of the United States for infringing his patent for the benefit of the government; his remedy is to sue in the Court of Claims for compensation.

In this case, held that, although this action was commenced before June 25, 1910, as it was confined solely to obtaining an injunction against future use, which cannot now be allowed, the action must be dismissed without prejudice to the right of the patentee to proceed in the Court of Claims for compensation under the Act of 1910.

32 App.D.C. 1 reversed.

The facts, which involve the right of a patentee to enjoin an officer of the United States from using the patent, and the construction and effect of the Act of June 25, 1910, conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Claims in certain instances of claims of patentees against the United States for use of patents, are stated in the opinion.

Page 224 U. S. 297

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.