Custer v. United States

622 F.2d 554, 224 Ct. Cl. 140, 208 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 886, 1980 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 165
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedMay 14, 1980
DocketNo. 181-78
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 622 F.2d 554 (Custer 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
Custer v. United States, 622 F.2d 554, 224 Ct. Cl. 140, 208 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 886, 1980 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 165 (cc 1980).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This case comes before the court on plaintiffs’ request, filed October 26, 1979, for review by the court of the recommended decision of Trial Judge Francis C. Browne, filed August 21, 1979, pursuant to Rule 54(b) and the court’s order of November 10, 1978, on defendant’s motion and supplemental motion for summary judgment, having been submitted on the briefs and oral argument of counsel. Upon consideration thereof, since the court agrees with the trial judge’s recommended decision, as hereinafter set forth, it hereby affirms and adopts the decision as the basis for its judgment in this case. Accordingly, defendant’s motions are granted and the petition is dismissed.

OPINION OF TRIAL JUDGE

BROWNE, Trial Judge: This is an action brought by Willard R. Custer (Custer) and Custer Channel Wing Corporation (CWC) against the United States (defendant) under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) for unauthorized use or manufacture by or for defendant of the inventions disclosed and claimed in United States Patents Nos. 2,687,262 (the ’262 patent), 3,704,842 (the ’842 patent), and 3,650,497 (the ’497 patent).

[144]*144Defendant has moved for summary judgment based on its contention that recovery under the ’262 patent is barred by the statute of limitations and the accused structure does not infringe either the ’497 or ’842 patent.1 Plaintiffs contend that defendant’s motions are based on erroneous propositions of law and that genuine issues of material fact are in dispute and remain to be decided. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the case may be decided solely on the law as applied to the undisputed facts. On the basis of such facts and the applicable law, we decide that defendant’s motion and supplemental motion for summary judgment should be granted and, accordingly, dismiss the petition.

"Channeled Aircraft”

"Channeled Aircraft” or a "Channel Wing Aircraft” is a type of jet propelled aircraft in which either the intake or exhaust air of a jet engine is directed across the upper surface of an upwardly open channel or trough, the longitudinal axis of which extends in the direction of flight. The channel is contoured to function as an airfoil insofar as the speed of the air traveling across the upper surface of the channel, being enhanced by the thrust of the engine, creates an upward force in the channel and thus provides lift for the aircraft to which the channel is attached. The net result of such a configuration is the generation of a lifting force in addition to that provided by the wing airfoil of otherwise conventional aircraft.

Each of the patents in suit relates to an aircraft embodying the "channel” concept. The ’262 patent is directed to an aircraft in which the inlet of the jet engine is adjacent the leading edge of the channel, and the discharge of the jet engine is intermediate of the fore and aft ends of the channel. The ’842 patent is concerned with the contour of the exhaust stack of the jet engine in relation to the [145]*145contour of the channel, and the position of the exhaust stack in relation to the leading edge of the channel. The ’497 patent deals with a further modification of the channel concept in that the channels are located in close proximity to the discharge end of the jet engines in direct line of communication with the exhaust flow and are vertically adjustable in such a way as to function as ailerons.

Although Custer is the inventor of the invention claimed in each of the patents, he assigned his entire right, title and interest in the ’497 patent to co-plaintiff, CWC, but retained title to the ’262 and ’842 patents. Thus, Custer is plaintiff as to the ’262 and ’842 patents, and CWC is plaintiff as to the ’497 patent. .

The ’262 Patent

The ’262 patent, issued August 24, 1954 to Willard R. Custer, is entitled "Jet Propelled Channeled Aircraft.” It is undisputed that Custer is the sole party entitled to recovery for infringement of the ’262 patent,2 if any, inasmuch as the patent was not assigned by him to any other party. 35 U.S.C. § 151.

The ’262 patent expired on August 24, 1971, the term of the patent being 17 years from the date of issue. 35 U.S.C. § 154. Custer can recover only for acts of infringement committed after the date of issue and prior to the date of expiration of the patent, subject to the statute of limitations prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 2501 and 35 U.S.C. § 286. Calhoun v. United States, 197 Ct. Cl. 41, 45, 453 F.2d 1385, 1387, 172 USPQ 438, 440 (1972); Hebern v. United States, 132 Ct. Cl. 344, 348, 132 F. Supp. 451, 453, 105 USPQ 478, 479 (1955). Whereas 28 U.S.C. § 2501 requires suit to be brought within 6 years after the claim "first accrues,” 35 U.S.C. § 286 extends the time for bringing suit for a period equal to the time an administrative claim was pending before a department or agency of the Government prior to the date of filing the petition.

[146]*146The petition in this case was filed on April 27,1978. Thus, recovery is limited to the period subsequent to April 27, 1972, unless an administrative claim was filed with respect to the patent in suit. Inasmuch as the patent expired on August 24, 1971, no recovery whatever may be had unless the 6-year statute of limitations has been tolled.

Custer argues that an administrative claim was filed on December 21, 1976, thereby tolling the statute of limitations for a period from December 21, 1976 to February 16, 1978, the date on which the claim was denied.

The only evidence relied upon by Custer to establish the filing of an administrative claim with respect to the ’262 patent is a letter written by his attorney, Mr. Pierson, on December 21, 1976, to Mr. Joseph E. Rusz, an Air Force patent attorney, which stated:

Dear Mr. Rusz:
I enclose for filing Administrative Claim of Willard R. Custer for infringement of patents owned by him all as set out in the enclosed letter signed by Mr. Custer. (Emphasis added.)
The enclosed letter stated:
Dear Mr. Rusz:
I desire to file an administrative claim for compensation before the Department of the Air Force for infringement of my patents by Fairchild Industries, Inc.
Hi * * * *
The patents infringed are patents numbers 3,650,497-Claim No. 1, and 3,704,842-Claim No. 1.
Since this letter does not mention the ’262 patent, Custer’s contention is unsupported by the evidence.

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

Related

Filler v. United States
Federal Claims, 2020
Bondyopadhyay v. United States
Federal Claims, 2015
Cohen v. United States
94 Fed. Cl. 165 (Federal Claims, 2010)
Voisin v. United States
80 Fed. Cl. 164 (Federal Claims, 2008)
Leonardo v. United States
55 Fed. Cl. 344 (Federal Claims, 2003)
Hatter v. United States
38 Fed. Cl. 166 (Federal Claims, 1997)
McCreary v. United States
35 Fed. Cl. 533 (Federal Claims, 1996)
Dow Chemical Co. v. United States
39 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,704 (Federal Claims, 1994)
MDS Associates, Ltd. v. United States
31 Fed. Cl. 389 (Federal Claims, 1994)
Motorola, Inc. v. United States
34 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,380 (Court of Claims, 1987)
Hankins v. United States
7 Cl. Ct. 698 (Court of Claims, 1985)
Dynamics Corp. of America v. United States
32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 72,625 (Court of Claims, 1984)
Warpar Manufacturing Corp. v. Ashland Oil, Inc.
102 F.R.D. 749 (N.D. Ohio, 1983)
Baldwin Park Community Hospital v. United States
231 Ct. Cl. 1011 (Court of Claims, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
622 F.2d 554, 224 Ct. Cl. 140, 208 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 886, 1980 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/custer-v-united-states-cc-1980.