Legal Opinion

C.E. Equipment Co. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided June 22, 1989No. 16-85CPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

RADER, Judge.

Plaintiffs — C.E. Equipment Co., Inc. (C.E.) and Harco Corporation — are respectively the assignee and licensee of United States Patent No. 3,725,669, “Deep Anode Bed for Cathodic Protection,” (the ’669 patent). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) (1982), plaintiffs seek “reasonable and entire compensation” from the United States for infringement of the ’669 patent. The ’669 patent defines a method and apparatus for protecting buried metallic structures from corrosion. In particular, the ’669 patent purports to disclose a novel method for replacing spent anodes.

Plaintiffs moved for…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
  3. Sri International v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
  4. Autogiro Company of America v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1967
  5. Loctite Corporation, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Ultraseal Ltd., Appellees/cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Chemical Separation Technology, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2002
  2. Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2001
  3. Bailey v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API