At page 509 Determining the scope of reasonable and entire compensation10 citing cases“complete justice as between the plaintiff and the united states,”
- Giesecke & Devrient GmbH v. United States, No. 17-1812 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 22, 2020).publishedNo. 104-373 at 2 (1995), 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4173, 4174 (citing Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508, 509 (1931)).
- Fastship, LLC v. United States, No. 12-484 (Fed. Cl. June 27, 2019).publishedNo. 104-373, at 2 (1995), 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4173, 4174 (citing Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508, 509 (1931)).
- Hitkansut LLC v. United States, No. 12-303 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 15, 2019).publishedNo. 104-373, at 2 (1995), 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4173, 4174 (citing Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508, 509 (1931)).
- Monessen Sw. Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 486 U.S. 330 (1988).published See, e. g., General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U. S. 648, 654-656 (1983); Jacobs v. United States, 290 U. S. 13, 16-17 (1933); Waite v. United States, 282 U. S. 508, 509 (1931).
- Dynamics Corp. of Am. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 591 (Ct. Cl. 1984).publishedWaite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508, 509 [ 51 S.Ct. 227, 227 , 75 L.Ed. 494 ] (1931).
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. 648 (1983).published Rec. 9881 (1946). [10] See Waite v. United States, 282 U. S. 508, 509 (1931); Jacobs v. United States, 290 U. S. 13, 16 (1933) (interest from time of the taking is necessary to constitute adequate compensation under the Fifth Amendment); M…
- Tektronix, Inc. v. United States, 213 Ct. Cl. 257 (Ct. Cl. 1977).publishedWaite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508, 509 (1931).
- Pitcairn v. United States, 212 Ct. Cl. 168 (Ct. Cl. 1976).publishedThis 'additional amount has been referred to as “delay compensation.” As stated by Justice Holmes in Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508, 509 (1931), the “reasonable and entire compensation” provided by the statute “was intended to accomp…
- Calhoun v. United States, 197 Ct. Cl. 41 (Ct. Cl. 1972).publishedWe have already recalled (Part I, sufra) that the section under which plaintiffs sue is a congressional exercise of the federal eminent domain power '(see Irving Air Chute Co. v. United States, 117 Ct. Cl. 799, 802-03 , 93 F. Supp. 633 , 8…
- Gyromat Corp. v. Champion Spark Plug Co., 735 F.2d 549 (Fed. Cir. 1984).published
q2 “reasonable and entire compensation”7 citing cases
- Dynamics Corp. of Am. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 591 (Ct. Cl. 1984).publishedWaite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508, 509 [ 51 S.Ct. 227, 227 , 75 L.Ed. 494 ] (1931).
- Tektronix, Inc. v. United States, 213 Ct. Cl. 257 (Ct. Cl. 1977).publishedWaite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508, 509 (1931).
- Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., 886 F.2d 1545 (9th Cir. 1989).published
- Gaylord v. United States, 678 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012).published
- Orr v. Sonnenburg, 542 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989).published
- ITT Corp. v. United States, 17 Cl. Ct. 199 (Ct. Cl. 1989).published
Other citing cases
- Boeing Co. v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 303 (Fed. Cl. 2009).published
- Paymaster Tech., Inc. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 593 (Fed. Cl. 2004).published
- Gargoyles, Inc. v. United States, 37 Fed. Cl. 95 (Fed. Cl. 1997).published
- Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 31 Fed. Cl. 481 (Fed. Cl. 1994).published
- Leesona Corp. v. United States, 220 Ct. Cl. 234 (Ct. Cl. 1979).published
- Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. United States, 107 Fed. Cl. 659 (Fed. Cl. 2012).published
- Fed. Mktg. Co. v. Virginia Impression Prods. Co., 823 A.2d 513 (D.C. 2003).published
- Polaroid Corp. v. Offerman, 507 S.E.2d 284 (N.C. 1998).published
- Marvin L. Fishman & Illinois Basketball, Inc. v. Est. of Arthur M. Wirtz, & Illinois Basketball, Inc. v. Est. of Arthur M. Wirtz, 807 F.2d 520 (7th Cir. 1987).published
v.
United States
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit under the Act of July 1, 1918, c. 114, 40 Stat.. 704, 705; U. S. Code, Title 35, § 68, to recover for the unlicensed use of a patented invention. The liability of the United States is established by the findings of the. Court of Claims and is not disputed. Neither is there any dispute that the profits that the plaintiff would have made are a proper measure of the damages suffered.' The Court of Claims, however, ruled that interest should not be allowed upon the amount so fixed, and a writ of cer-tiorari was granted by this Court upon that question.
The Government, without formally confessing error, states its. belief that interest should have been allowed.[*509] The statute grants ‘ recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use.’ We are of opinion that interest should be allowed in order to make the compensation ‘ entire.’ In addition to the purpose of the word, adverted to in Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. United States, 275 U. S. 331, 343, we cannot doubt that it was intended to accomplish complete justice as between the plaintiff and the United States. See Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 299. Brooks-Scanlon Corp. v. United States, 265 U. S. 106. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. v. United States, 274 U. S. 215. Phelps v. United States, 274 U. S. 341.
Judgment reversed.