United States v. Société Anonyme Des Anciens Establissements Cail

1912-04-08
Share:

Headline: Patent royalties affirmed: Court upholds $136,000 award for inventor after U.S. military used the De Bange gas check, finding an implied agreement to pay and that the device was infringing.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Makes the Government liable for royalties for patented devices it adopts and uses.
  • Confirms inventors can recover when officials adopt inventions without denying ownership.
  • Affirms trial court fact-finding on damages, leaving the award intact.
Topics: patent royalties, military procurement, patent infringement, government liability

Summary

Background

A French inventor (Colonel De Bange) and his assignee claimed the United States used his patented “gas check” (an obturator for breech-loading guns) in army and navy heavy guns without paying. The claimant informed Navy and War Departments, exchanged letters with ordnance officers, and was advised to seek relief in the Court of Claims. The Court of Claims found an implied contract and awarded $136,000; both the Government and the claimant appealed.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Government’s use amounted to a wrongful taking or showed assent that created an implied obligation to pay. The Supreme Court treated this as a factual question and agreed the Government’s conduct — including official inspections, continued use, and departmental handling of the claim — supported a finding of an implied contract rather than a plain trespass. On infringement, the Court accepted the lower court’s finding that the core invention was the asbestos-and-tallow packing that expands to seal gas, and that reasonable variations could still infringe. The Court therefore upheld the finding of infringement and the award of damages as a matter of fact.

Real world impact

The decision requires the Government to answer for past use when its officials adopt and use a patented device without clearly denying the inventor’s title. It affirms the Court of Claims’ role in resolving such patent compensation disputes and preserves the trial court’s factual findings about infringement and damages. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the $136,000 judgment against the United States.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases