Schillinger v. United States
1894 U.S. LEXIS 2262, 15 S. Ct. 85, 155 U.S. 163 (1894)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The jurisdiction of the Court of Claims does not extend to claims against the United States government that sound in tort. For a claim of unauthorized government use of patented property to be cognizable, it must be based on an implied contract, which requires some form of agreement or meeting of the minds, rather than a transaction where the parties were in continuous antagonism.
Facts:
- John J. Schillinger held a patent for a method of constructing concrete pavements in separate, detached blocks.
- The Architect of the Capitol planned to install new concrete pavement on the Capitol grounds.
- Schillinger protested to the Architect, asserting his patent rights and demanding that the contract only be awarded to a licensee.
- Despite the protest, the Architect awarded the pavement contract to the lowest bidder, a contractor named Cook, who was not licensed to use Schillinger's patented process.
- The Architect required Cook to provide a bond to indemnify the United States against any potential lawsuits for patent infringement.
- Cook proceeded to construct the pavement for the government using the method described in Schillinger's patent, while Schillinger continued to object.
- The United States government accepted and took possession of the completed pavement.
Procedural Posture:
- The assignees of the Schillinger patent filed a petition against the United States in the Court of Claims.
- The petition sought to recover compensation for the government's use of the patented process for constructing concrete pavement.
- The Court of Claims, as the court of first instance, dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
- The court reasoned that the claim was one 'sounding in tort' and therefore fell outside the court's statutory jurisdiction.
- The claimants appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the unauthorized and protested use of a patented invention by a government contractor, with the government's knowledge, give rise to an implied contract for compensation that is actionable in the Court of Claims, or does it constitute a tort for which the government retains sovereign immunity?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brewer
No, the government's unauthorized use of a patent constitutes a tort, not an implied contract, and therefore the Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction. The statutes granting jurisdiction to the Court of Claims explicitly exclude cases 'sounding in tort.' An implied contract requires a meeting of the minds or some semblance of an agreement. Here, the claimants consistently protested the use of their patent, and the government proceeded without any acknowledgment of their rights, creating a purely antagonistic relationship. The transaction was a 'tort pure and simple,' akin to patent infringement, for which Congress has not consented to suit against the government.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes, the claim is actionable because it is founded upon the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause creates a constitutional obligation for the government to provide just compensation when it appropriates private property, including a patent, for public use. This constitutional duty implies a promise to pay, which is sufficient to establish an implied contract within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. Furthermore, the 1887 act expressly grants the court jurisdiction over claims 'founded upon the Constitution of the United States,' and a claim for just compensation for a taking is precisely such a claim, regardless of whether the initial appropriation was tortious.
Analysis:
This decision solidified the strict jurisdictional barrier between tort and contract claims against the United States under the Tucker Act. It established that for a takings claim to be heard as an implied contract, there must be evidence of government assent or privity, not just a wrongful appropriation by a government agent. The ruling significantly narrowed the path for patent holders to receive compensation from the government, forcing them to prove a consensual element in the transaction rather than a mere tortious infringement. This precedent was later legislatively overruled in part, but it remains a foundational case for understanding sovereign immunity and the distinction between tortious takings and compensable takings based on implied contracts.
