Case: FRANK G. FARNHAM v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Farnham v. United States
Decision Date: 1915-10
Docket Number: 
Citation: 51 Ct. Cl. 489
Volume: 51
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: FRANK G. FARNHAM v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 489–490

Head Matter:
FRANK G. FARNHAM v. THE UNITED STATES.
(49 O. Ols. R., 19; 240 U. S. R., 537.)
On the plaintiff appeal.
This is a suit to recover the net profits on a patented postage-stamp holder in use by the Post Office Department for a number of years.
The court below decides:
The circumstances attending a transaction involving the use of a patented device about which an implied contract therefor arises must indicate much more than mere consent to its use upon the part of the patentee.
Where the defendants disclaim having used the patented article and follow this assertion with a positive .claim of invention upon their part, declining to concede either use or ownership in the article used by the plaintiff, the elements of mutuality are lacking.
Where the existence of the essential elements out of which an implied contract arises is a subject of disputation, the defendants can not be precluded, simply because the United States is involved, from showing by positive proof a situation that in itself precludes the idea of mutuality or recognition of plaintiff’s patent.
This court is without jurisdiction to invalidate a patent; its judgments do not assume to do so.
Where the invention claimed is no more than the employment of elements old in the art to accomplish a new purpose or result, the invention is limited specifically to the details of one’s claims.
To he patentable an idea or discovery must not only possess novelty and utility but it must be the product of inventive faculties as well.
Where the jurisdiction of the court, as well as plaintiff’s right to recover, depends upon the use of the alleged invention under such circumstances as to warrant an implied contract therefor, the use of the plaintiff’s invention must be established.
The decision of the court below is affirmed, the Supreme Court holding that the judgment, however, should be without prejudice to the presentation of any claim petitioner may have under the act of June 25,1910, 36 Stat. L., 851.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Hughes
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 3, 1916.