Amax Fly Ash Corp. v. United States

Amax Fly Ash Corp. v. United States

Opinion

 [*760]   [**1042]  This case comes before the court on defendant's exceptions to a recommended decision filed [***9]  by Trial Judge Hal D. Cooper on May 23, 1974, pursuant to Rule 134(h), having been submitted to the court on oral argument and the briefs of counsel. Upon consideration thereof, since the court agrees with the trial judge's recommended decision, as hereinafter set forth, it hereby affirms and adopts the same as the basis for its judgment in this case. It is, therefore, concluded that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 3,421,587 is valid and infringed and that plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable and entire compensation for unauthorized use by defendant. Judgment is entered, accordingly, for plaintiff with the extent of defendant's liability to be determined in further proceedings pursuant to Rule 131(c) (2).

OPINION OF TRIAL JUDGE

Cooper, Trial Judge: Plaintiff alleges unauthorized use by defendant of an invention described and claimed in its U.S. Patent No. 3,421,587, entitled "Method For Mine Fire Control," issued January 14, 1969, in the names of Heavilon, Jones, and Thomas.

 [**1043]  At issue is defendant's liability under 28 U.S.C. § 1498 for mine-fire control work performed at Monongahela City, Pennsylvania, by the Bureau of Mines. ² Defendant denies any infringement [***10]  of the patent, but asserts it is invalid and unenforceable, in any event. In addition, defendant contends that an employee of the Bureau of Mines, Malcolm Magnuson, was the originator of the process used at Monongahela City and that the patentees derived the invention from him. Alternatively, defendant maintains that Magnuson was, with the patentees, a coinventor of the process. Finally, it is contended that defendant has the right to use the invention without  [*761]  liability either by reason of being a joint venturer with plaintiff during its development or by reason of an implied license.

For the reasons stated hereinafter, none of these defenses can be sustained and it is concluded that plaintiff is entitled to recover.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.