Home/Court of Claims/Barnett v. United States

Barnett v. United States

6 Cl. Ct. 631, 1984 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1272
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedOctober 30, 1984
DocketNo. 450-78
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 6 Cl. Ct. 631 (Barnett v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barnett v. United States, 6 Cl. Ct. 631, 1984 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1272 (cc 1984).

Opinion

OPINION

SETO, Judge.

Plaintiff seeks recovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1498 of reasonable and entire compensation for the unauthorized use and manufacture, by or for the United States, of the invention described and claimed in U.S. Letters Patent No. 3,379,889 (“ ‘889” or “Barnett patent”), entitled “Beam-Driven Gyroscope Device”. The patent was issued on April 23, 1968, on an application filed April 5, 1963, by coinventor-plaintiffs Eugene R. Barnett, and his since deceased father, Willard L. Barnett. Plaintiff, Eugene R. Barnett, resides at 6268 Windsor Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana.

A trial on the merits was held specifically addressing the issues of validity and infringement of claim 7 of the patent in suit. The accounting phase was deferred for a later trial, pending the determination of liability.

Background Of The Barnett Patent

The application for the patent in suit was filed on April 5, 1963, by plaintiffs Eugene R. Barnett and his father Willard L. Barnett, the latter since deceased. The application described a gyroscope device in which the rotor was suspended by an elec-tro-magnetic field and light beams were used to fulfill several other necessary gyroscope functions. The device is best shown in Fig. 1 of the Barnett patent which is reproduced below to facilitate reference.

[635]*635

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stockton East Water District v. United States
76 Fed. Cl. 497 (Federal Claims, 2007)
Caroline Hunt Trust Estate v. United States
65 Fed. Cl. 271 (Federal Claims, 2005)
Exxon Corp. v. United States
45 Fed. Cl. 581 (Federal Claims, 1999)
Stelco Holding Co. v. United States
42 Fed. Cl. 101 (Federal Claims, 1998)
Day & Zimmermann Services, A Division of Day & Zimmermann, Inc. v. United States
42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,186 (Federal Claims, 1997)
BMY—Combat Systems Division of Harsco Corp. v. United States
38 Fed. Cl. 109 (Federal Claims, 1997)
Speck v. United States
28 Fed. Cl. 254 (Federal Claims, 1993)
Omni Moving & Storage of Virginia, Inc. v. United States
38 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,481 (Federal Claims, 1993)
Weeks Dredging & Contracting, Inc. v. United States
34 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,356 (Court of Claims, 1987)
Manning v. United States
10 Cl. Ct. 651 (Court of Claims, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Cl. Ct. 631, 1984 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnett-v-united-states-cc-1984.