Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/299/201/case.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 14:42:57+00:00

Document:
"Upon the foregoing special findings of fact, which are made a part of the judgment herein, the court decides as a conclusion of law that the plaintiff's patent is valid and has been infringed by the United States, and that he is entitled to compensation therefor under the act of June 25, 1910."
"An aeroplane having distortable wings for maintaining transverse stability, a rudder for maintaining longitudinal stability, a lever controlling said wings and said rudder, a steering rudder, and a separate lever controlling said steering rudder."
lateral stability, means for producing longitudinal stability, and a single vertical lever movable in every direction for operating both said means for producing lateral stability and said means for producing longitudinal stability."
Each of the other claims relied on contains the substance of claim 5 with variations and additions not here important.
On the facts found, the petitioner contends: respondent's patent is invalid as claiming a device not patentable over prior disclosures. No element of invention is found in the asserted instinctive character of the operation of the control lever. The patent, if held valid in any respect, should be limited to a combination comprising a pair of vertical control levers with a single integral or unitary tail surface of an airplane, and, so construed, is not infringed. The vertical control lever did not constitute invention over the structure disclosed in the respondent's 1906 French patent, application for which was filed more than one year before that for the patent in suit. [Footnote 5] The claims are not supported by the disclosure. Plaintiff's patent is invalid because the claims on the control lever were not inserted in the application until five and one-half years after filing, while the device came into general use in the United States prior to that time.
in respect of the main issues. [Footnote 11] The special findings may not be aided by statements in the conclusions of law [Footnote 12] or the opinion of the court [Footnote 13] to the effect that the patent is valid and infringed.
Judicial Code, § 155, 28 U.S.C. § 261.
Act of June 25, 1910, 36 Stat. 851, as amended by Act of July 1, 1918, 40 Stat. 705, 35 U.S.C. § 68.
"In any patent suit, it shall be competent for the parties to stipulate that the hearing in the first instance be limited to the issues of validity and infringement, and when no such stipulation can be reached by the parties, the court may order such procedure to be followed."
"If the patent is held valid and infringed by the United States, the court shall so adjudge and the case shall thereafter proceed according to law."
Court of Claims Rule 39.
"In any case in the Court of Claims . . . , it shall be competent for the Supreme Court, upon the petition of either party, . . . to require, by certiorari, that the cause, including the findings of fact and the judgment or decree, but omitting the evidence, be certified to it for review and determination with the same power and authority, and with like effect, as if the cause had been brought there by appeal."
§ 3(b), Act of February 13, 1925, 43 Stat. 939. 28 U.S.C. § 288.
"No person otherwise entitled thereto shall be debarred from receiving a patent for his invention or discovery, nor shall any patent be declared invalid by reason of its having been first patented or caused to be patented by the inventor or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country, unless the application for said foreign patent was filed more than twelve months, in cases within the provisions of § 31 of this title, . . . prior to the filing of the application in this country, in which case no patent shall be granted in this country."
R.S., § 4887 (§ 25, Act of July 8, 1870, 16 Stat. 201) as amended by § 3, Act of March 3, 1897, 29 Stat. 693 and § 1, Act of March 3, 1903. 32 Stat. 1225, 35 U.S.C. § 32.
Wood v. Underhill, 5 How. 1, 46 U. S. 5-6; Battin v. Taggert, 17 How. 74, 58 U. S. 85; Bischoff v. Wethered, 9 Wall. 812, 76 U. S. 814; Keyes v. Grant, 118 U. S. 25, 118 U. S. 37; Haines v. McLaughlin, 135 U. S. 584, 135 U. S. 597; St. Paul Plow Works v. Starling, 140 U. S. 184, 140 U. S. 196-197; Coupe v. Royer, 155 U. S. 565, 155 U. S. 577 et seq.; United States v. Societe Anonyme des Anciens Etablissements, 224 U. S. 309, 224 U. S. 322; Thomson Spot Welder Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 265 U. S. 445, 265 U. S. 446; Stilz v. United States, 269 U. S. 144, 269 U. S. 147.
Black Diamond Co. v. Excelsior Coal Co., 156 U. S. 611, 156 U. S. 618; Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U. S. 90, 281 U. S. 93-95; cf. Keyes v. Grant, 118 U. S. 25, 118 U. S. 36-37; Royer v. Schultz Belting Co., 135 U. S. 319, 135 U. S. 325.
Chesapeake Insurance Co. v. Stark, 6 Cranch 268, 10 U. S. 273,; Prentice v. Zane's Administrator, 8 How. 470, 49 U. S. 484; Graham v. Bayne, 18 How. 60, 59 U. S. 63; Burr v. Des Moines Nav. & R. Co., 1 Wall. 99, 68 U. S. 102; Ward v. Cochran, 150 U. S. 597, 150 U. S. 608; Luckenbach S.S. Co. v. United States, 272 U. S. 533, 272 U. S. 539; Clementson, Special Verdicts, p. 204.
Mahan v. United States, 14 Wall. 109, 81 U. S. 111-11; Luckenbach S.S. Co. v. United States, 272 U. S. 533, 272 U. S. 539.
Section 3(b), Act of February 13, 1925, 43 Stat. 939, 28 U.S.C. § 288(b). Rule 41, pars.(3)(4).
Anglo-American Land, M. & A. Co. v. Lombard, 132 F. 731, 734. See Ross v. United States, 12 Ct.Cls. 565, 571, 572. Clementson, Special Verdicts, pp. 209, 215.
French v. Edwards, 21 Wall. 147, 88 U. S. 151; Sun Mutual Ins. Co. v. Ocean Ins. Co., 107 U. S. 485, 107 U. S. 501-503; Kealing v. Van Sickle, 74 Ind. 529, 536; Knight v. Kerfoot, 184 Ind. 31, 39, 110 N.E. 206; Houtz v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 33 Utah, 175, 195, 93 P. 439.
Stone v. United States, 164 U. S. 380, 164 U. S. 383; Crocker v. United States, 240 U. S. 74, 240 U. S. 78; Brothers v. United States, 250 U. S. 88, 250 U. S. 93; United States v. Wells, 283 U. S. 102, 283 U. S. 120.
United States v. Pugh, 99 U. S. 265, 99 U. S. 270; Ripley v. United States, 220 U. S. 491, 220 U. S. 496; Winton v. Amos, 255 U. S. 373, 255 U. S. 395; Botany Worsted Mills v. United States, 278 U. S. 282, 278 U. S. 290; United States v. Wells, 283 U. S. 102, 283 U. S. 120.
United States v. Adams, 6 Wall. 101, 73 U. S. 110-111; cf. Indiana Farmer's Guide Pub. Co. v. Prairie Farmer Pub. Co., 293 U. S. 268, 293 U. S. 281.
United States v. Adams, 9 Wall. 661, 76 U. S. 663; Winton v. Amos, 255 U. S. 373, 255 U. S. 395; Louisville & Nash. R. Co. v. United States, 258 U. S. 374, 258 U. S. 377; Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. United States, 259 U. S. 296, 259 U. S. 303; Luckenbach S.S. Co. v. United States, 272 U. S. 533, 272 U. S. 539; United States v. Jefferson Electric Mfg. Co., 291 U. S. 386, 291 U. S. 406.

References: § 155
 § 261
 § 68

§ 3
 § 288
 § 31
 § 4887
 § 3
 § 1
 § 32
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 288
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.