Case: E. W. BLISS COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: E. W. Bliss Co. v. United States
Decision Date: 1920-05-17
Docket Number: 
Citation: 55 Ct. Cl. 520
Volume: 55
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: E. W. BLISS COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 520–520

Head Matter:
E. W. BLISS COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.
[53 C. Cls., 47; 253 U. S., 187.]
Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, and the Supreme Court decided:
Petitioner averred that it granted the Government’s request for permission to purchase from another certain torpedoes containing a device in which the petitioner claimed patent rights, upon a royalty the amount of which was “ to be later settled,” and that the Government purchased; but it also alleged that - negotiations to settle the amount to be paid failed and that petitioner never consented to the use of the patented invention without payment of an amount of royalty which the Government refused to pay. Sold, that no express or implied contract to pay any royalty, cognizable by the Court of Claims under Judicial Code, sec. 145, could be derived from the facts stated.
To maintain an infringement suit against the United States under the act of June 25, 1910, the claimant must have at least such an interest in the patent as independently of that act would support a suit against a defendant other than the United States.
A grant by a prospective patentee of the “ sole and exclusive license ” to use the invention for the full term of patents to be procured on designated articles only when sold to the United States, the grantee undertaking to pay a royalty on; each such article fitted with the invention and the grantor at its own cost to procure patent and to defend • “ the license to use * * * hereby granted ” against infringers, is a mere license and will not sustain a suit for infringement.

Opinion:
Mr.. Justice Clarke
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May 17, 1920.