Court Opinion

ID: 9453904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:27:45.678266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:51.603583
License: Public Domain

GODBOLD, Circuit Judge
(specially concurring):
I concur with the conclusion that under the facts of this case the patented device was used for the government with its authorization and consent. The record before us discloses that the equipment for cooling the concrete used in the construction of a government-owned dam was assembled especially for the project. The equipment was located on government property and the full output of *916concrete was used to construct the dam. A large portion of the mobilization payments made to the contractor under the contract was for the cooling apparatus. Notwithstanding the silence of the contract specifications on the particular method by which the concrete was to be cooled,1 these facts support the conclusion that the device employed by the contractor was “used” for the government. That equipment is constructed by a contractor for use in the performance of a government contract, and is so used, do not alone constitute “use” for the government within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1498.

. See Bereslavsky v. Esso Standard Oil Co., 175 F.2d 148 (4th Cir. 1949).