Soundscriber Corp. v. United States

360 F.2d 954, 175 Ct. Cl. 644
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedMay 13, 1966
DocketNo. 479-59
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 360 F.2d 954 (Soundscriber Corp. 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
Soundscriber Corp. v. United States, 360 F.2d 954, 175 Ct. Cl. 644 (cc 1966).

Opinion

Per Curiam :

This case was referred to Trial Commissioner Donald E. Lane with directions to make findings of fact and recommendation for conclusions of law. The commissioner has done so in an opinion and report filed on January 17,1966. Thereafter, on March 7, 1966, the parties filed a stipulation wherein it was stipulated and consented that the opinion, findings of fact and recommended conclusion of law in the report be adopted as the opinion, findings of fact and conclusion of law of the court. • It was further stipulated that there be entered judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000), as reasonable and entire compensation (including interest) for all unlicensed use and manufacture by or for the defendant of the invention described and claimed in U.S. patent No. 2,803,413, and as payment from defendant to plaintiff for a paid-up, nonexclusive, [647]*647irrevocable, nontransferable, royalty-free license to practice, and canse to be practiced for the defendant throughout the world for governmental purposes in the manufacture, use and disposition according to law, of any article or material, and in the use of any method, the invention disclosed and claimed in U.S. patent No. 2,803,413. Since the court agrees with the trial commissioner’s findings, opinion and recommended conclusion of law, as hereinafter set forth, it hereby adopts the same as the basis for its judgment in this case without oral argument. The opinion and conclusion of the trial commissioner accord with the principles announced by the Supreme Court in Graham, et al. v. John, Deere Company of Kansas City, et al., 383 U.S. 1, and United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, October Term, 1965, all decided February 21, 1966. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to recover and judgment is entered for plaintiff with the amount of recovery to be in accordance with the stipulation of the parties submitted after the commissioner’s recommendation that the amount of recovery be determined under Pule 47(c) (2), as previously set forth.

OPINION op Commissioner

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

Related

Ca, Inc. v. Simple. Com, Inc.
780 F. Supp. 2d 196 (E.D. New York, 2009)
Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc.
523 F.3d 1323 (Federal Circuit, 2008)
Revlon, Inc. v. Carson Products Co.
602 F. Supp. 1071 (S.D. New York, 1985)
Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Industrial Products, Inc.
756 F.2d 1556 (Federal Circuit, 1985)
Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.
586 F. Supp. 1176 (D. Kansas, 1984)
Bendix Corp. v. United States
600 F.2d 1364 (Court of Claims, 1979)
In re Marshall
578 F.2d 301 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1978)
Canron, Inc. v. Plasser American Corp.
474 F. Supp. 1010 (E.D. Virginia, 1978)
Reynolds Metals Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America
457 F. Supp. 482 (N.D. Indiana, 1978)
Interdent Corp. v. United States
531 F.2d 547 (Court of Claims, 1976)
Del Mar Engineering Laboratories v. United States
524 F.2d 1178 (Court of Claims, 1975)
Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. v. Brainerd
369 F. Supp. 468 (D. Massachusetts, 1974)
Blohm & Voss Ag v. Prudential-Grace Lines, Inc.
489 F.2d 231 (Fourth Circuit, 1973)
Tate Engineering, Inc. v. United States
477 F.2d 1336 (Court of Claims, 1973)
Filterite Corp. v. Tate Engineering, Inc.
318 F. Supp. 584 (D. Maryland, 1970)
Package Devices, Inc. v. Sun Ray Drug Co.
432 F.2d 272 (Third Circuit, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
360 F.2d 954, 175 Ct. Cl. 644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soundscriber-corp-v-united-states-cc-1966.