Croll-Reynolds Co., Inc. v. Perini-Leavell-Jones-Vinell

399 F.2d 913
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 20, 1969
Docket24346_1
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 399 F.2d 913 (Croll-Reynolds Co., Inc. v. Perini-Leavell-Jones-Vinell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Croll-Reynolds Co., Inc. v. Perini-Leavell-Jones-Vinell, 399 F.2d 913 (5th Cir. 1969).

Opinions

JONES, Circuit Judge:

The appellants are the owners of patents for methods and apparatus for the cooling of concrete ingredients and mixes. The appellees are contractors or subcontractors engaged in the construction of a portion of the Amistad Dam across the Rio Grande River for the United States. The construction contract required that concrete, when deposited in the forms, should have a temperature of not more than 50 and not less than 40 degrees Fahrenheit.1 This required that concrete be cooled prior to pouring into the forms. The contract does not require that the cooling be done by any particular method or process. The contract does contain a provision covering the use of inventions.2 The appellees in[914]*914stalled cooling equipment, as contemplated by the terms of the contract,3 and the contracting officer of the Gov-eminent, as provided by the contract,4 [915]*915approved the cooling facility and equipment. The Government made payment for it to the appellees.

The appellants, asserting that the cooling done by the appellees was by the use of their patented methods and devices, brought an action alleging infringement and seeking an injunction and damages. Among their defenses the appellees asserted that the court did not have jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1498(a).5 The jurisdictional issue was tried separately. The district court determined that the cooling equipment was used for the Government and with its authorization and consent, and hence the sole remedy of the appellants was by an action against the United States in the Court of Claims as is provided by Section 1498. A judgment dismissing the action for want of jurisdiction was entered. We agree with the decision of the district court and affirm its judgment.

The Government contract required that the concrete be cooled before being used in the construction. This required that equipment and facilities be constructed to carry out this part of the work. The Government approved the cooling equipment and facilities and, as its contract required, made payment for it. The absence of any designation or specification in the contract that would require the use of the appellant’s invention does not preclude a finding that there has been a use for the Government with the authorization and consent of the Government. The cooling equipment was constructed by the contractor for use in the performance of its contract with the Government, and it was so used. Hence there was a use for the Government. The approval and payment evidences, conclusively, we think, the Government’s authorization and consent. It does not matter that there may have been other cooling devices or systems that might have been used. If some other system had been installed, another claimant under another patent might be the appellant here. Under Section 1498 the appellants’ remedy, if any they have, is against the United States in the Court of Claims. Stelma, Incorporated v. Bridge Electronics Co., Inc., 3rd Cir. 1962, 300 F.2d 761; Bereslavsky v. Esso Standard Oil Co., 4th Cir. 1949, 175 F.2d 148; Consolidated Vacuum Corporation v. Machine Dynamics, Inc., D.C.S.D.Calif. 1964, 230 F.Supp. 70.

The issues of patent validity and infringement were not considered or decided by the district court and, of course, are not considered or decided by this Court.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

Related

Burlodge Ltd. v. Standex International Corp.
257 F.R.D. 12 (District of Columbia, 2009)
Tm Patents v. IBM
107 F. Supp. 2d 352 (S.D. New York, 2000)
Riles v. Amerada Hess Corp.
999 F. Supp. 938 (S.D. Texas, 1998)
Robishaw Engineering, Inc. v. United States
891 F. Supp. 1134 (E.D. Virginia, 1995)
Croydon Co., Inc. v. Unique Furnishings, Ltd.
831 F. Supp. 480 (E.D. North Carolina, 1993)
Alco Standard Corp. v. Tennessee Valley Authority
448 F. Supp. 1175 (W.D. Tennessee, 1978)
Carrier Corp. v. United States
534 F.2d 244 (Court of Claims, 1976)
Molinaro v. Watkins-Johnson CEI Division
359 F. Supp. 467 (D. Maryland, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
399 F.2d 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/croll-reynolds-co-inc-v-perini-leavell-jones-vinell-ca5-1969.