Fletcher v. United States
Fletcher v. United States
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court:
The learned counsel for the petitioner rested their ease on a contract between him and the United States, and the point is stated in their brief as follows : “ By the advertisement for designs, the submission by the plaintiff of the stamp, and the adoption and use thereof by the Government, an implied contract was created, and the defendant is bound to pay a reasonable compensation for the use of the invention.”
We think the answer to this is that made at the bar, that the Government did not use the petitioner’s stamp nor contract with him.
The evidence shows that both the petitioner and Spencer M. Clark were original inventors of the same mechanical contrivance in the form of a stamp. But their several inventions were distinct things, for they had different origins, and grew to their completion under different experiments and circumstances, and had different ownerships, for each invention was the property in possession of its inventor, who could use it himself and contract in relation to its use, till a patent was issued vesting exclusive rights in the patentee; and we think it clear on the facts stated that the paid whisky-stamp used by the Government was the invention and property of Clark, for which,, in September, 1868, no patent existed, and which he was free to deal with at his pleasure, and which then, by express agreement with the officers of the Interior Department, he licensed the United States to use without cost; and as all the use of the Government was under this express contract with Clark for his invention, it was not under the implied contract with the petitioner, which he founds on the advertisement for a design and his submission of one and the use of it by the United States. On this part of
The'second point of the learned counsel for the petitioner is thus stated in their brief:
“ The invention was the property of the plaintiff, as well before as after he had received his patent, and the Government had no more right to use his invention without compensation than any private individual.”
But the petitioner had no exclusive rights in his invention till he had obtained his patent; and if any rights accruing to him by that have been infringed, the remedy is not within our jurisdiction. 1
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Addison C. Fletcher v. United States
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue advertises for designs for stamps and plans for their cancellation. The claimant submits his invention.for a self-canceling stamp. About the same time the Chief of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing devises a somewhat similar stamp, and offers it gratuitously to the Government. It is adopted and largely used. Both the claimant and the chief of the bureau apply for letters-patent. The claimant is declared to be the original and true inventor, and a patent is issued to him and refused to the other. The claimanibrings his suitin this court on the implied'contract arising from the advertisement of the Commissioner, the submission of his design by the claimant, and the adoption and use thereof by the Government. This court re-examines the question of originality. The /invention of the claimant is for an adhesive stamp perforated and underlaid with tissue or bibulous paper ; the invention of the chief is for a perforated stamp underlaid with any paper of less tenacity, such as rice-paper. The stamp used by the Government is not underlaid with bibulous, but with calendered paper. I. An implied contract at the common law does not arise in favor of an inventor who lias submitted in response to an invitation an invention for a self-canceling stamp if the defendants adopt and use the somewhat similar design of another party, both inventions being distinct things, having different origins, and growing to completion under different experiments and circumstances. II. If the Government adopt the design of one inventor, and a patent is subsequently issued to another for the same device, this court has not jurisdiction of an action for an infringement.