In Sinclair Refining Co. v. Jenkins Petroleum Process Co., 289 U.S. 689 (1933), the Supreme Court touched on this issue in a breach of contract action for failure to execute applications for a patent. The Court noted that determining the market value for a patent at the time of breach is difficult because "a patent is a thing unique." Id. at 697. Instead, the Court reasoned that in order to determine the value of the patent at the time of the breach, and thus to determine damages, experts can testify based on the "state of the art, the character of the improvement, and the probable increase of efficiency or saving of expense" if "the trial follows quickly after the issue of the patent." Id. at 698. The Court went on to say that "a different situation is presented if years have gone by before the evidence is offered." In that case, the Court reasoned that "experience is then available to correct uncertain prophecy. Here is a book of wisdom that courts may not neglect. We find no rule of law that sets a clasp upon its pages, and forbids us to look within." Id. at 698. The Court explained that "to correct uncertain prophecies in breach of contract or tort cases is not to charge the offender with elements of value non-existent at the time of his offense" but rather "it is to bring out and expose to light the elements of value that were there from the beginning." Id.