International Postal Supply Co. v. Bruce

Background

The dispute involved the International Postal Supply Company, which owned patents for stamp-cancelling and postmarking machines, and Dwight H. Bruce, a local postmaster alleged to be using machines that infringe those patents without paying royalties. The United States had leased and was in possession of the machines under a lease that had not expired. A lower court asked the Supreme Court a certified question about whether a court could stop the local officer from using the machines.

Reasoning

Justice Holmes, writing for the majority, relied on an earlier decision (Belknap v. Schild) and said the federal government’s possessory lease gives it a present right to use the machines. Because the United States could not be made a party to the suit, the Court held a court order to stop the machines would improperly interfere with the government’s use “behind its back,” so an injunction could not be granted in that situation.

Real world impact

The ruling means a patentee may not obtain a court order immediately stopping a local federal officer from using leased patented machines when the government has a present possessory right and cannot be joined. The decision leaves damages suits or other remedies as the available paths, and it does not decide whether a lease renewal could be enjoined.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Harlan (joined by Justice Peckham) dissented, arguing courts should be able to enjoin government officers who violate patent rights and that damages alone are inadequate to protect inventors.