Case: SAMUEL H. WOODBRIDGE AND EDWARD WOODBRIDGE BARNES, EXECUTORS OF WILLIAM E. WOODBRIDGE, DECEASED, v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Woodbridge v. United States
Decision Date: 1923-11-12
Docket Number: 
Citation: 59 Ct. Cl. 952
Volume: 59
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: SAMUEL H. WOODBRIDGE AND EDWARD WOODBRIDGE BARNES, EXECUTORS OF WILLIAM E. WOODBRIDGE, DECEASED, v. THE UNITED STATES
Judges: 
Pages: 952–952

Head Matter:
SAMUEL H. WOODBRIDGE AND EDWARD WOODBRIDGE BARNES, EXECUTORS OF WILLIAM E. WOODBRIDGE, DECEASED, v. THE UNITED STATES
[55 C. Cls. 234; 263 U. S. 50]
Judgment was rendered in the court below in favor of the United States. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, and the Supreme Court decided:
Any practice of an Inventor and applicant for patent through wliicli he, deliberately and without excuse, postpones the beginning of the term of his monopoly, and thus puts off the free public enjoyment of the invention, is an evasion of the patent law and defeats its aim.
An inventor of projectiles for rifled cannon having obtained allowance of a patent from the Patent Office, procured the papers to be filed in the secret archives on a statement that he wished this for one year only as an aid in obtaining patent rights abroad, and thereafter for nearly ten years deliberately abstained from requesting issuance of his patent in order to postpone the beginning of the patent monopoly until the needs of the Government for the invention should render it of pecuniary value to himself. HeML, that he forfeited his right to the patent, within the meaning of the special act of Congress authorizing this suit, and therefore compensation could not be recovered from the Government even if it used the invention within the period defined by that statute. Act of March 2, 1901, 31 Stat. 1788.

Opinion:
Mr. Chiee Justice Taet
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court November 12, 1923.