Legal Opinion

McKeever v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided December 15, 1878PublishedCited by 13 opinions

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. On the 10th June, 1873, two patents were issued to the claimant, numbered respectively 139816, 139847, as the invention of an improvement in cartridge-boxes. II.

Read the full summary

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. On the 10th June, 1873, two patents were issued to the claimant, numbered respectively 139816, 139847, as the invention of an improvement in cartridge-boxes. II. On the 1st June, 1874, the Secretary of War, upon the recommendation of the Chief of Ordnance, convened a board of officers to consider, report upon, and recommend the proper equipment of infantry soldiers by the following order: “WAR DEPARTMENT, “ Ad.tutaNT-General’s Opeice, “ Washington, June 1,1874. “A board, to-consist of Lieut. Col. W. R.…

1Opinion of the CourtPott, J.

This is an action brought by a patentee to recover his royalty upon certain cartridge-boxes covered by his letters patent, which were manufactured by the defendants’ Ordnance Department., under an implied license from the jiatentee.

The learned counsel for the defendants resists a recovery upon the ground that letters x>atent do not exclude the government from the free use of a patented invention. He cites, to sustain the proposition, the English cases of Feather v. The Queen (6 B. & S., Q. B., 237) and Dixon v. The London Small Arms Company (10 Law Rep., Q; B., 130, 1874 —’75; 1 Law Rep., Q.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Lovejoy v. MurraySupreme Court of the United States · 1866
  2. Nichols v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
  3. McCLURG v. KINGSLANDSupreme Court of the United States · 1843
  4. United States v. PughSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  5. Railroad Co. v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1873

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. United States v. Buffalo Pitts Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1914
  2. In re the Valuation Proceedings under Sections 303(c) & 306Special Court under the Regional Rail Reorganization Act · 1977
  3. Adams v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1964
  4. Morse Arms Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1880
  5. International Harvester Co. of America v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1931

8 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