Stub v. United States
Decision Date | 02 March 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 478-53.,478-53. |
Citation | 119 F. Supp. 206 |
Parties | STUB v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Claims Court |
John Stub, pro se.
Francis H. Fassett, New York City, Warren E. Burger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and LITTLETON, WHITAKER, and MADDEN, Judges.
On October 10, 1945, the commissioner to whom this case had been referred was directed by a court order to take testimony to ascertain whether the structure claimed in the patent in suit was made before or during plaintiff's service with the Government, and report to the court.
A hearing was held in Boston on October 25, 1945, at which the plaintiff declined to put in evidence any of the drawings and descriptions then in his possession and alleged by him to be a complete description of his invention prior to the commencement of his government employment. The commissioner reported to the court that
On January 7, 1946, that suit was dismissed by the court on defendant's plea in bar on the basis of the facts previously found by the commissioner, 63 F.Supp. 748, 105 Ct.Cl. 397. Plaintiff's motion for a new trial was overruled May 6, 1946. Petition to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari was denied October 14, 1946, 329 U.S. 751, 67 S.Ct. 81, 91 L. Ed. 647, and rehearing was denied October 28, 1946, 329 U.S. 825, 67 S.Ct. 120, 91 L.Ed. 701. This brings us to the present situation.
The patent jurisdictional act (now Title 28, sec. 1498 U.S.C.) was amended July 17, 1952, so that now a government employee has the right to bring suit for infringement against the United States in this court under his patent except in certain cases such as "where he was in a position to order, influence, or induce use of the invention by the Government" and where the invention is related to certain official functions of the employee.
The plaintiff Stub thereupon again filed suit in this court upon the same patent involved in the former suit, No. 2,346,337, which does not expire until April 11, 1961. It appears from certain letters which the plaintiff Stub has written to the court subsequent to the filing of his present petition that he is of the belief that section 1498 of Title 28 of the United States Code, as amended July 17, 1952, is retroactive in effect and that any cause of action which plaintiff may have thought he had at the time of filing his previous petition has now been revived and merged with the cause of action asserted in his present petition.
However, in the case of Strategical Demolition Torpedo Company, Inc., v. United States, 110 F.Supp. 264, 124 Ct. Cl. 492, this court decided that the jurisdictional act of July 17, 1952, did not have retroactive effect so as to change the law as applied in a prior case by the same plaintiff.
On November 13, 1953, the defendant filed a motion for an order declaring the period of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rogallo v. United States
...patents. 12 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498. See n. 5 supra. Myers v. United States, 177 F.Supp. 952, 147 Ct.Cl. 485 (1959); Stub v. United States, 119 F.Supp. 206, 127 Ct.Cl. 710 (1954). 13 For the legislative history, see H.R. Rep.No.1726, 82nd Cong., 2d Sess. (1952), reprinted in 2 U.S.Code Cong. & A......
-
Myers v. United States, 119-56.
...employment at the time. It is not necessary to decide the actual date of the completion of plaintiff's invention. Stub v. United States, 119 F. Supp. 206, 127 Ct.Cl. 710, 713. Plaintiff admits that he worked on the idea while employed in the Preliminary Aircraft Design section, but outside ......
-
Gearon v. United States, 159-53.
...are challenged or rebutted by the defendant, which defendant has not done, they must be accepted as proved. See Stub v. United States, Ct.Cl., 119 F. Supp. 206, and cases cited therein. While the Stub case dealt with the acceptance as true of uncontroverted statements in affidavits, the sam......
- Wallace v. United States