Case Name: Chester R. SHOOK, Administrator of the Estate of Alfred Russell, Deceased, Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1956-11-08
Citations: 238 F.2d 952
Docket Number: No. 12724
Parties: Chester R. SHOOK, Administrator of the Estate of Alfred Russell, Deceased, Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 238
Pages: 952–956

Head Matter:
Chester R. SHOOK, Administrator of the Estate of Alfred Russell, Deceased, Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 12724.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Nov. 8, 1956.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 21, 1956.
E. S. Allen, Cincinnati, Ohio, Allen & Allen, Cincinnati, Ohio, on brief, for appellant.
Gilbert A. Horn, Dept, of Agriculture, Chicago, Ill., Hugh K. Martin, Thomas Stueve, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellee.
Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The District Court decreed that the invention of Dr. Alfred Russell, decedent, entitled "A New Class of Polymeric Materials and Novel Processes for Producing Them," and Patent No. 2,579,759 issued on such invention were the sole and exclusive property of the United States. Decedent, from about March 21, 1947, to March 12, 1948, was employed as a research chemist at the Northern Regional Research Laboratory of the United States Department of Agriculture at Peoria, Illinois. His duties were "Under general supervision: to plan and conduct fundamental and practical investigations on the chemical structure and properties of lignin and hemicelluloses from agricultural residues In accordance with Section 1561 of Regulations Concerning Patents of the United States Department of Agriculture then in force, Dr. Russell made several full written reports of his invention to his superiors at the laboratory and requested the patent expert at the laboratory to investigate the subject. The expert prepared a form of patent specifications on the invention, which was transmitted to the Chief of the Bureau of Agricultural and Industrial Chemistry of the United States Department of Agriculture. Dr. Russell initialed the file copy of the memorandum of transmittal, thus approving the recommendation that the patent be assigned to the Secretary of Agriculture. On June 28, 1948, Dr. Russell died and letters of administration on his estate were issued by the Probate Court of Hamilton County, Ohio. The administrator filed a patent application on the invention described above and the United States Patent Office issued the patent in question to the administrator. The United States later filed the complaint herein, demanding that the court order the administrator to assign the patent to the United States. Judgment was entered in favor of the United States.
The District Court found under the record that the invention was evolved as the direct and natural result of decedent's execution of his assigned duties in the laboratory.
Appellant's principal contention is that, in the absence of statutory provision, the United States Department of Agriculture is not authorized tó require assignment of the patent in question to the United States. While no statutory authority is cited which authorizes the issuance of the Regulations Concerning Patents, they were formally drawn, presented to decedent when he assumed his duties, and he complied with their provisions repeatedly with respect to the invention in question. The Regulations, therefore, were treated by the parties as embodying conditions of . employment. Decedent's acceptance of the Regulations as such is binding upon-his administrator even in absence of express statutory authorization. Cf. E. F. Drew & Co., Inc., v. Reinhard, 2 Cir., 170 F.2d 679; Restatement of the Law of Agency, Section 397. When an employee is hired to devote his efforts to a particular problem, to conduct experiments for a specifically assigned purpose, and an invention results from the performance of that work, it belongs to the employer. Marshall v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co., 3 Cir., 175 F.2d 215, 217; Houghton v. United States, 4 Cir., 23 F.2d 386, opinion by Judge Parker, certiorari denied 277 U.S. 592, 48 S.Ct. 528, 72 L.Ed. 1004; Solomons v. United States, 137 U.S. 342, 11 S.Ct. 88, 34 L.Ed. 667; McAleer v. United States, 150 U.S. 424, 14 S.Ct. 160, 37 L.Ed. 1130; Gill v. United States, 160 U.S. 426, 16 S.Ct. 322, 40 L.Ed. 480; Standard Parts Co. v. Peck, 264 U.S. 52, 59, 44 S.Ct. 239, 68 L.Ed. 560. In the last case the employee was hired to assist the employer in working out a certain problem and to devote his time to the development of a process and machinery for the production of a front spring for an automobile. We can see no substantial difference in the arrangement here, where decedent was employed to plan and conduct fundamental and practical investigations as described. Investigations of the subject assigned led directly to the invention in suit.
The findings of the District Court are not clearly erroneous and the judgment is affirmed.