Mr. Justice Bradley,
after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.
The principal objections raised on the part of the government against the judgment are, to the jurisdiction of the court and the form of the action. It is assumed that the ground of complaint on which the petition is founded is a tort and not a contract; that the assertion in the petition of an implied contract is not warranted by the facts of the case; and that the government cannot be sued in the Court of Claims for a mere tort.
This assumption of the appellant is erroneous. No tort was committed or claimed to have been committed. The government used the claimant’s improvements with his consent; and, certainly, with the expectation on his part of receiving a rea-, sonable compensation for the license. This is not a claim for an infringement, but a claim of compensation for an authorized use, —two things totally distinct in the law, as distinct as trespass on lands is from use and occupation under a lease. The first sentence in the original opinion of the court below strikes the key-note of the argument on this point. It is as follows : “ The claimant in this case invited the government to adopt his patented infantry equipments, and the government did so. It is conceded on both sides that there was no infringement of the claimant’s patent’, and that whatever the government did .was done with the consent of the patentee and under his implied license.” We think that an implied contract for com- ’ pensation fairly arose under the license to use, and the actual use, little or much, that ensued thereon. The objection, therefore, that this is an action for a tort falls to the ground.
It is objected that an action cannot be brought in the Court of Claims on a patent, .the Circuit Court having exclusive" jurisdiction of this subject. But whilst that objection may be available as to actions for infringement of a patent, in which its validity may be put in issue, and in which the peculiar defences authorized by the patent laws in Rev. Stat. § 4920 may be set up, it is not valid as against actions founded on contracts for the use of patented inventions.
United States
v. Burns, 12 Wall. 246;
Wilson
v.
Sanfordy
10 Sow. 99;
Hartell
v. Tilghman, 99 U. S. 547;
Albright
v.
eas,
106 U. S. 613;
Dal
e
Tile Manfg Co.
v. Hyatt, 125 U. S. 46. The case of
United
States
v.
Burns
was an appeal from a decree of the Court of Claims in favor of Burns for one-half of the license fee agreed upon for the use, by the government, of Major Sibley’s patent tent, one-half of the patent having been assigned to . Major Burns. Sibley joined the Confederates ; Burns remained true to his allegiance, and the Quartermaster General directed that he should be paid his half of the royalty. This payment being afterwards suspended, Burns filed a petition in the Court of Claims for. the recovery of the amount due' him. The court sustained the claim, although in a previous case, in which one Pitcher claimed damages against the government for the infringement of a patent, it had rejected the claim. In the case of Buims, that court said:
“ It was also contended, on behalf of the United States, that this court had no jurisdiction of this case, because we cannot entertain a shit for the infringement of a patent; and
Pitcher’s Case,
1 C. Cl. p. 7, was referred to. But this suit is not -brought for the infringement of a patent, nor for the unauthorized use of a patented invention, but upon a special contract • with a patentee, whereby the use -of the invention by the United States was authorized and agreed to be paid for.
,.Pitcher’s Case,
therefore, is not like this. In
Pitcher’s Case
there was nothing but an unauthorized use by an officer of the United' States, and where an officer of the United States, without authority from them, uses in their service a patented invention, the act being unlawful- is his and not theirs, and he ' and not they, are responsible for it.”
Burns Case,
4 C. Gl. 113. The point of jurisdiction does mot seem to have been taken in this court; but the jurisdiction of - the Court of Claims was assumed. ■'
It .was1'at one time somewhat doubted whether the government might not be entitled to the use and benefit of every patented invention, by analogy to the English law which reserves this right to the crown. . But that notion no longer exists. It was ignored in the Case of Burns. The subject was afterwards adverted to in
James
v.
Campbell,
104 U. S. 356, and the following observations in the opinion of the court in that case are so pertinent to the one in hand, that we deem it proper to reproduce'them. We there said:
“ That the government of the United States, when it grants letters-patent for a new invention or discovery in the arts, confers upon the patentee an exclusive property in the patented invention which cannot be appropriated or used by the government itself,, without just compensation, any more than it can appropriate or use without compensation land which has been patented to a private purchaser, we have no doubt. The Constitution gives ' to Congress power
‘
to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective waitings and discoveries,’ which could not be effected if the government had a reserved right' to publish such writings or to use such inventions without the consent of the owner. Many inventions relate to subjects which can only be properly used by the government, such as explosive' shells, rams and submarine batteries to be attached to armed vessels. If it could use such inventions without compensation, the inventors could get no return at all for their discoveries and experiments. It has been the general practice, when inventions have been made which are desirable for government use either for the government to purchase them from the inventors, and use them as secrets of the proper department ; or, if a patent "is granted, to pay the patentee a fair compensation for their, use: The United States has no such prerogative as that which is claimed by the sovereigns of England, by which it can reserve to itself, .either expressly or by implication, a superior dominion and use in that which it grants by letters-patent to those who entitle themselves to such grants. The government of the United States, as well as the citizen,.is subject to the Constitution; and when it ■grants a patent .the gran the is entitled to it as a matter of right, and does riot receive it, as was originally supposed to be the case in England, as a matter of grace and favor.
“
But the mode of obtaining compensation from the United States' for the use of an invention, where such use has.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mr. Justice Bradley,
after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.
The principal objections raised on the part of the government against the judgment are, to the jurisdiction of the court and the form of the action. It is assumed that the ground of complaint on which the petition is founded is a tort and not a contract; that the assertion in the petition of an implied contract is not warranted by the facts of the case; and that the government cannot be sued in the Court of Claims for a mere tort.
This assumption of the appellant is erroneous. No tort was committed or claimed to have been committed. The government used the claimant’s improvements with his consent; and, certainly, with the expectation on his part of receiving a rea-, sonable compensation for the license. This is not a claim for an infringement, but a claim of compensation for an authorized use, —two things totally distinct in the law, as distinct as trespass on lands is from use and occupation under a lease. The first sentence in the original opinion of the court below strikes the key-note of the argument on this point. It is as follows : “ The claimant in this case invited the government to adopt his patented infantry equipments, and the government did so. It is conceded on both sides that there was no infringement of the claimant’s patent’, and that whatever the government did .was done with the consent of the patentee and under his implied license.” We think that an implied contract for com- ’ pensation fairly arose under the license to use, and the actual use, little or much, that ensued thereon. The objection, therefore, that this is an action for a tort falls to the ground.
It is objected that an action cannot be brought in the Court of Claims on a patent, .the Circuit Court having exclusive" jurisdiction of this subject. But whilst that objection may be available as to actions for infringement of a patent, in which its validity may be put in issue, and in which the peculiar defences authorized by the patent laws in Rev. Stat. § 4920 may be set up, it is not valid as against actions founded on contracts for the use of patented inventions.
United States
v. Burns, 12 Wall. 246;
Wilson
v.
Sanfordy
10 Sow. 99;
Hartell
v. Tilghman, 99 U. S. 547;
Albright
v.
eas,
106 U. S. 613;
Dal
e
Tile Manfg Co.
v. Hyatt, 125 U. S. 46. The case of
United
States
v.
Burns
was an appeal from a decree of the Court of Claims in favor of Burns for one-half of the license fee agreed upon for the use, by the government, of Major Sibley’s patent tent, one-half of the patent having been assigned to . Major Burns. Sibley joined the Confederates ; Burns remained true to his allegiance, and the Quartermaster General directed that he should be paid his half of the royalty. This payment being afterwards suspended, Burns filed a petition in the Court of Claims for. the recovery of the amount due' him. The court sustained the claim, although in a previous case, in which one Pitcher claimed damages against the government for the infringement of a patent, it had rejected the claim. In the case of Buims, that court said:
“ It was also contended, on behalf of the United States, that this court had no jurisdiction of this case, because we cannot entertain a shit for the infringement of a patent; and
Pitcher’s Case,
1 C. Cl. p. 7, was referred to. But this suit is not -brought for the infringement of a patent, nor for the unauthorized use of a patented invention, but upon a special contract • with a patentee, whereby the use -of the invention by the United States was authorized and agreed to be paid for.
,.Pitcher’s Case,
therefore, is not like this. In
Pitcher’s Case
there was nothing but an unauthorized use by an officer of the United' States, and where an officer of the United States, without authority from them, uses in their service a patented invention, the act being unlawful- is his and not theirs, and he ' and not they, are responsible for it.”
Burns Case,
4 C. Gl. 113. The point of jurisdiction does mot seem to have been taken in this court; but the jurisdiction of - the Court of Claims was assumed. ■'
It .was1'at one time somewhat doubted whether the government might not be entitled to the use and benefit of every patented invention, by analogy to the English law which reserves this right to the crown. . But that notion no longer exists. It was ignored in the Case of Burns. The subject was afterwards adverted to in
James
v.
Campbell,
104 U. S. 356, and the following observations in the opinion of the court in that case are so pertinent to the one in hand, that we deem it proper to reproduce'them. We there said:
“ That the government of the United States, when it grants letters-patent for a new invention or discovery in the arts, confers upon the patentee an exclusive property in the patented invention which cannot be appropriated or used by the government itself,, without just compensation, any more than it can appropriate or use without compensation land which has been patented to a private purchaser, we have no doubt. The Constitution gives ' to Congress power
‘
to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective waitings and discoveries,’ which could not be effected if the government had a reserved right' to publish such writings or to use such inventions without the consent of the owner. Many inventions relate to subjects which can only be properly used by the government, such as explosive' shells, rams and submarine batteries to be attached to armed vessels. If it could use such inventions without compensation, the inventors could get no return at all for their discoveries and experiments. It has been the general practice, when inventions have been made which are desirable for government use either for the government to purchase them from the inventors, and use them as secrets of the proper department ; or, if a patent "is granted, to pay the patentee a fair compensation for their, use: The United States has no such prerogative as that which is claimed by the sovereigns of England, by which it can reserve to itself, .either expressly or by implication, a superior dominion and use in that which it grants by letters-patent to those who entitle themselves to such grants. The government of the United States, as well as the citizen,.is subject to the Constitution; and when it ■grants a patent .the gran the is entitled to it as a matter of right, and does riot receive it, as was originally supposed to be the case in England, as a matter of grace and favor.
“
But the mode of obtaining compensation from the United States' for the use of an invention, where such use has. not been by the consent of the patentee, has never been spécifi-' cally provided for by any statute. The most proper forrim for such a claim is the Court of Claims, if that court has the '
requisite jurisdiction. As its jurisdiction does not. extend to torts, there might be some difficulty, as the law now stands, in prosecuting in that court a claim for the unauthorized use of a patented' invention; although where' the tort is waived and the claim is placed upon the footing of an implied contract, we understand that, the court has in several recent instances entertained the jurisdiction. It is true it overruled such a claim on the original patent in this case, presented in 1867: but according to more recent holdings, it would probably now take cognizance of the case. The question of its jurisdiction has never been presented for the consideration of this court, and it would be premature for us to determine it now. If the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims should not be finally sustained, the only remedy against the United States, until Congress enlarges the jurisdiction of that court, would be to apply to Congress itself.” pp.- 357-360.
We have quoted these observations because, so far as they express an opinion on the subject, either of the right or the remedy, they are in general accord with our present views.' And we add now, that in our judgment, the Court of Claims has jurisdiction to entertain claims and demands of the character presented in the present suit. Whether a patentee may waive an infringement of his patent by the government, and sue upon an implied contract, is a question on which we do not express an opinion.
As- to the questions relating to the character and amount of use which the government had of the claimant’s invention, and of the proper compensation due^ therefor, we do not see anything in the findings ■ of the court below, or' in its conclusions deduced therefrom, to call for serious observation. What evidence the court may have had on these points is not disclosed by the record, and should not be, and the facts found are sufficient to sustain the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.