WAITE
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A patent holder sought compensation from the United States for its unlicensed use of the patented invention under the Act of July 1, 1918, with the Court of Claims establishing liability and awarding damages based on lost profits but denying interest. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that interest must be allowed on the damages award in order to provide the "entire compensation" required by the statute and to accomplish complete justice between the parties.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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 cer-tiorari was granted by this Court upon that question.
The Government, without formally confessing error, states its. belief that interest should have been allowed. The 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 in Richmond Screw 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. See Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 299. Brooks-Scanlon Corp. v. United States, 265 U. S. 106. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. v. United States, 274 U. S. 215. Phelps v. United States, 274 U. S. 341.
Judgment reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1983)…e his damages consist not only of the value of the royalty payments but also of the forgone use of the money between the time of infringement and the date of the judgment. This very principle was the basis of the decision in Waite v. United States, 282 U. S. 508 (1931), which involved a patent infringement suit against the United States. The patent owner had been awarded unliquidated damages in the form of lost profits, but had been denied an award of prejudgment interest. This Court held that an award of p…1 / 2
-
Monessen Sw. Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 486 U.S. 330 (U.S. 1988)…purpose of the overall award is to make the plaintiff whole. See General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U. S. 648, 654-656 (1983) (patent infringement); Jacobs v. United States, 290 U. S. 13, 16-17 (1933) (eminent domain); Waite v. United States, 282 U. S. 508, 509 (1931) (patent infringement); Miller v. Robertson, 266 U. S. 243, 256-259 (1924) (contract). In short, it cannot be denied that an award of interest on pretrial economic losses in an FELA case is necessary to make the injured worker whole, and…1 / 2
-
Fishman v. Est. OF Arthur M. Wirtz, 807 F.2d 520 (7th Cir. 1986)…terest “merely serves to make the [victim] whole, since his damages consist not only of the value of the [profits lost] but also of the forgone use of the money”. 461 U.S. at 656,103 S.Ct. at 2062. See also Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508, 509, 51 S.Ct. 227, 227, 75 L.Ed. 494 (1931) (presumption in favor of prejudgment interest in patent law); Jacobs v. United States, 290 U.S. 13, 54 S.Ct. 26, 78 L.Ed. 142 (1933) (prejudgment interest is an essential ingredient of “just compensation” under the fifth am…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1923)
- Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. United States, 275 U.S. 331 (U.S. 1928)
- Brooks-Scanlon Corp. v. United States, 265 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1924)
- Phelps v. United States, 274 U.S. 341 (U.S. 1927)
- Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. v. United States, 274 U.S. 215 (U.S. 1927)