Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508 (1931)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508 (1932)
Waite v. United States
No. 103
Submitted January 30, 1931
Decided February 24, 1931
282 U.S. 508
Syllabus
Under the Act of July 1, 1918, which gave 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. 282 U. S. 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.
Opinions
U.S. Supreme Court
Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508 (1932) Waite v. United States No. 103 Submitted January 30, 1931 Decided February 24, 1931 282 U.S. 508 CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus Under the Act of July 1, 1918, which gave 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. 282 U. S. 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. MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court. 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. Page 282 U. S. 509 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, 275 U. S. 343, we cannot doubt that it was intended to accomplish complete justice as between the plaintiff and the United States. See Seaboard Air Line R. 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.
Search This Case
