E. W. Bliss Co. v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporter’s statement of the case: The averments of the petition, to which defendants demur will be found sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court.
Read the full summary
The Reporter’s statement of the case: The averments of the petition, to which defendants demur will be found sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court. The technical distinction between an assignment and a license is fully set forth in the leading case of Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 U. S., 252. Petitioner’s instrument of grant has the three requisites of an assignment emphasized in Waterman v. Mackenzie, viz., the exclusive right (1) to make, (2) to use, and (3) to sell, within a prescribed territory (being the whole United States) and for a prescribed time (being the whole duration…
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, Chief Justice
The plaintiff, E. W. Bliss Co., brought its action against the United States to recover several sums aggregating $255,000, claimed to be due as “royalties” upon certain patented inventions or compensation for their use by the United States. The defendants have demurred to the amended petition, and have moved to strike separate portions of the same.
The objections presented are (1) that the amended petition does not show a contract between plaintiff and defendant, (2) that it seeks a recovery of damages sounding in tort, or (3) that the case is one of infringement and plaintiff is a mere…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Waterman v. MacKenzieSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co. v. Phenix InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Gayler v. WilderSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Scudder v. Union National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Schillinger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- LeFiell v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1963
- Brunswick Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1991
- Superior Testers, Inc. v. Damco Testers, Inc.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1970