Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Waite v. United States

282 U.S. 508

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1931-02-24
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that where patent owner had been awarded unliquidated damages for patent infringement in the form of lost profits, an award of prejudgment interest was necessary “to make the compensation ‘entire” ’ and to ensure “complete justice” between the parties
  • allowing interest on damages for unlicensed Government use of a patented invention
  • patent law infringement suit; interest viewed as part of “entire compensation” to which statute referred
  • presumption in favor of prejudgment interest in patent law
  • addressing a patent infringement suit against the United States

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Waite v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
59 opinions
WAITEv. UNITED STATES,282 U.S. 508(1931)
51 S.Ct. 227
WAITEv. UNITED STATES.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
No. 103.
Submitted January 30, 1931.
Decided February 24, 1931.
Under the Act of July 1, 1918, which gives a remedy against the United States for the unlicensed use of a patented invention, and provides that compensation to the owners in such cases shall be reasonable and "entire," interest on the amount of the damages should be allowed. P. 509. 69 Ct. Cls. 153, reversed.
CERTIORARI,post, p. 817, to review a judgment of the Court
of Claims disallowing interest in a suit against the United
States for unlicensed use of a patent.
Messrs. O. Ellery EdwardsandHyman M. Goldsteinwere on the brief for petitioner.Solicitor General Thacher, Assistant Attorney General Rugg, andMr. H. Brian Hollandwere on the brief for the United States. They conceded that interest should have been allowed.
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit under the Act of July 1, 1918, c. 114,40 Stat. 704, 705; U.S. Code, Title 35, § 68, to recover for the unlicensed use of a patented invention. The liability of the United States is established by the findings of the Court of Claims and is not disputed. Neither is there any dispute that the profits that the plaintiff would have made are a proper measure of the damages suffered. The Court of Claims, however, ruled that interest should not be allowed upon the amount so fixed, and a writ of certiorari was granted by this Court upon that question.

The Government, without formally confessing error, states its belief that interest should have been allowed.Page 509The statute grants `recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use.' We are of opinion that interest should be allowed in order to make the compensation `entire.' In addition to the purpose of the word, adverted to inRichmondScrew Anchor Co. v.United States,275 U.S. 331,343, we cannot doubt that it was intended to accomplish complete justice as between the plaintiff and the United States. SeeSeaboard AirLine Ry. Co. v.United States,261 U.S. 299.Brooks-ScanlonCorp. v.United States,265 U.S. 106.Liggett Myers TobaccoCo. v.United States,274 U.S. 215.Phelpsv.UnitedStates,274 U.S. 341.Judgment reversed.