Legal Opinion
Barnett v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided October 30, 1984No. 450-78PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SETO, Judge.
Plaintiff seeks recovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1498 of reasonable and entire compensation for the unauthorized use and manufacture, by or for the United States, of the invention described and claimed in U.S. Letters Patent No. 3,379,889 (“ ‘889” or “Barnett patent”), entitled “Beam-Driven Gyroscope Device”. The patent was issued on April 23, 1968, on an application filed April 5, 1963, by coinventor-plaintiffs Eugene R. Barnett, and his since deceased father, Willard L. Barnett. Plaintiff, Eugene R. Barnett, resides at 6268 Windsor Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana.
A trial on the…
2Cases cited74 opinions
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- American Hoist & Derrick Company, Cross-Appellee v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1908
69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Day & Zimmermann Services, A Division of Day & Zimmermann, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1997
- Weeks Dredging & Contracting, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1987
- Stockton East Water District v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
- Stelco Holding Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1998
- BMY—Combat Systems Division of Harsco Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1997
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.