Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Tektronix, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided March 23, 1977No. 79-61Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKashiwa, Judge

I do not agree with the 10 percent royalty rate used by the majority. I also believe that the methodology used by the majority to arrive at that rate is not proper. Rather, it is my opinion that the graduated'rate recommended by the Government is the proper rate.

This court has held that where the patentee has by agreement established a royalty rate, that established rate is the measure of reasonable and entire compensation under 28 U.S.C. § 1498 (1970). In Calhoun v. United States, 197 Ct. Cl. 41, 55-56, 453 F. 2d 1385, 1393-1394 (1972), this court held as follows:

A. Claimants prefer to have…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. United States Ex Rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. PowelsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  2. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1970
  3. Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961
  4. Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  5. Omnia Commercial Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923

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

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

Powered by the Exa API