Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Fawcus Machine Company v. United States

• 1930 • 282 U.S. 375 • Hughes Court
In the 1930 case Fawcus Machine Company v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving patent rights and government contracts. The Fawcus Machine Company had been granted a contract by the U.S. Navy to manufacture shell casings using a specific patented method owned by another company, E.W. Bliss Co., without obtaining their permission or paying royalties for its use. When sued for infringement by Bliss Co., Fawcus argued that it was immune from liability because it was acting...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Hughes Court
Term: 1930
Docket: 40
282 U.S. 375
51 S. Ct. 144
75 L. Ed. 397
1931 U.S. LEXIS 10
Argued: Dec 12, 1930

Fawcus Machine Company v. United States

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1930 case Fawcus Machine Company v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving patent rights and government contracts. The Fawcus Machine Company had been granted a contract by the U.S. Navy to manufacture shell casings using a specific patented method owned by another company, E.W. Bliss Co., without obtaining their permission or paying royalties for its use. When sued for infringement by Bliss Co., Fawcus argued that it was immune from liability because it was acting under authority of the U.S government which has sovereign immunity against such suits. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument stating that while indeed, as per law, one cannot sue the federal government for patent infringement unless they consent to be sued; however, this protection does not extend to private contractors like Fawcus who are performing work on behalf of the government but are not part of it themselves. Therefore, in conclusion: A contractor working for US Government can still be held liable if they infringe upon patents during execution of their work even though they were doing so under orders from said Government.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of Fawcus Machine Company v. United States argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply relevant tax laws. The dissent believed that the company should not be taxed on its entire income, but only on its net income after deducting all necessary expenses incurred in earning said income. This includes depreciation charges which are a legitimate business expense recognized by both accounting principles and tax law. They contended that such deductions were essential for determining a corporation’s true ability to pay taxes, as they reflect actual decreases in value of assets used for production or operation purposes over time due to wear and tear or obsolescence. Therefore, ignoring these deductions would result in an unfair taxation system where companies could potentially be taxed more than their actual earnings.

Opinion written by Justice OJRoberts
Decided: Jan 05, 1931
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms