Legal Opinion
De Graffenried v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided May 18, 1990No. 541-80CPublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ANDEWELT, Judge.
In this patent action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498, plaintiff, Albert L. de Graf-fenried, seeks compensation from the United States for the unauthorized use of a device allegedly covered by Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of United States Patent No. 3,217,568 (the controller patent). The device in issue is a control system used by the United States Army for the control of “runout” during the manufacture of large cannons (gun barrels) at the Watervliet Arsenal in Watervliet, New York (the Arsenal). Defendant contends that it is not liable under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) because…
2Cases cited36 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
- Sri International v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- 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
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Riverwood International Corporation v. R.A. Jones & Co., Inc., Defendant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003
- Messerschmidt v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1993
- de Graffenried v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1992
- Davies v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1994
- De Graffenried v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1993
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.