37 C.F.R. § 5.2

Secrecy order

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) When notified by the chief officer of a defense agency that publication or disclosure of the invention by the granting of a patent would be detrimental to the national security, an order that the invention be kept secret will be issued by the Commissioner for Patents.

(b) Any request for compensation as provided in 35 U.S.C. 183 must not be made to the Patent and Trademark Office, but directly to the department or agency which caused the secrecy order to be issued.

(c) An application disclosing any significant part of the subject matter of an application under a secrecy order pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section also falls within the scope of such secrecy order. Any such application that is pending before the Office must be promptly brought to the attention of Licensing and Review, unless such application is itself under a secrecy order pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section. Any subsequently filed application containing any significant part of the subject matter of an application under a secrecy order pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section must either be hand-carried to Licensing and Review or mailed to the Office in compliance with § 5.1(a).

[24 FR 10381, Dec. 22, 1959, as amended at 62 FR 53203, Oct. 10, 1997; 65 FR 54683, Sept. 8, 2000]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2001–2002 · leading case: Weiss v. United States, 146 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D. Mass. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Weiss v. United States, 146 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D. Mass. 2001). “37 C.F.R. § 5.2 . In 1997, this provision was moved from section 5.”

Weiss v. United States, 37 F. App'x 518 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “10, 1997). . Appellants explain their “exclusive option” theory in their appeal brief: "Weiss’ contention throughout the district court proceedings was that the use of the invention for five years by the United States was equivalent to the taking of .”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.