## Facts

- Bert N. Adams and co-owners held a patent claiming a nonrechargeable, water-activated wet battery using a magnesium anode, a cuprous chloride cathode, and plain or salt water as the electrolyte.
- The battery could be shipped dry and activated by adding water, producing relatively constant voltage and current without acids and without dangerous fumes.
- Adams presented the invention to government experts, who initially doubted the battery would work as described.
- The United States later adopted the battery for multiple uses without compensating the patent holders.
- The patent holders sued the United States in the Court of Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1498 for patent infringement and also asserted an implied-contract theory.
- The Court of Claims held the patent valid and infringed in part, but found no express or implied contract and no contract breach.
- The United States sought Supreme Court review on patent validity; the patent holders argued the petition was untimely and that service defects barred review.

## Issues

1. Whether the petition for certiorari was timely when filed within 90 days of the later judgment disposing of the contract claim but more than 90 days after an earlier judgment addressing patent issues.
2. Whether noncompliance with service requirements in the Supreme Court’s rules required dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
3. Whether the battery patent was invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of prior wet-battery references and asserted “known substitutes.”

## Decision

- The Court held the certiorari petition timely because the relevant period ran from the later judgment disposing of the linked contract claim.
- The Court held the service defects did not bar review because the service rules were not jurisdictional and no prejudice resulted.
- On the merits, the Court affirmed the judgment upholding the patent’s validity.
- The Court concluded the claimed battery satisfied novelty, nonobviousness, and utility.

## Legal Principles

- For certiorari timing, the relevant judgment is the final disposition when related claims are sufficiently linked such that liability cannot be treated as finally resolved until the later judgment.
- Noncompliance with service rules does not defeat jurisdiction when the rules are nonjurisdictional and the opposing party suffers no prejudice.
- Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a combination of known elements may be nonobvious when prior art teaches away from the combination or when the device exhibits unexpected operating characteristics.
- Evidence that skilled experts initially viewed the approach as unworkable, yet the invention performs effectively, supports a finding of nonobviousness.
- Government adoption and widespread practical use support a finding of utility.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed that the water-activated battery patent was valid, holding that despite use of known components, the prior art did not make the claimed combination obvious because it taught away and the battery achieved unexpected, improved performance; the Court also rejected timeliness and service objections to review.


United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966)