37 C.F.R. § 5.5

Permit to disclose or modification of secrecy order

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

(a) Consent to disclosure, or to the filing of an application abroad, as provided in 35 U.S.C. 182, shall be made by a “permit” or “modification” of the secrecy order.

(b) Petitions for a permit or modification must fully recite the reason or purpose for the proposed disclosure. Where any proposed disclosee is known to be cleared by a defense agency to receive classified information, adequate explanation of such clearance should be made in the petition including the name of the agency or department granting the clearance and the date and degree thereof. The petition must be filed in duplicate.

(c) In a petition for modification of a secrecy order to permit filing abroad, all countries in which it is proposed to file must be made known, as well as all attorneys, agents and others to whom the material will be consigned prior to being lodged in the foreign patent office. The petition should include a statement vouching for the loyalty and integrity of the proposed disclosees and where their clearance status in this or the foreign country is known all details should be given.

(d) Consent to the disclosure of subject matter from one application under secrecy order may be deemed to be consent to the disclosure of common subject matter in other applications under secrecy order so long as not taken out of context in a manner disclosing material beyond the modification granted in the first application.

(e) Organizations requiring consent for disclosure of applications under secrecy order to persons or organizations in connection with repeated routine operation may petition for such consent in the form of a general permit. To be successful such petitions must ordinarily recite the security clearance status of the disclosees as sufficient for the highest classification of material that may be involved.

[24 FR 10381, Dec. 22, 1959, as amended at 62 FR 53204 Oct. 10, 1997]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1980–2012 · leading case: Constant v. United States, 1 Cl. Ct. 600 (Ct. Cl. 1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Constant v. United States, 1 Cl. Ct. 600 (Ct. Cl. 1982). · cites it 3× “Third, the appearance of the various business plans, proposals, and presentations which plaintiff introduced into evidence lead to the impression that plaintiff’s lack of business experience was a serious impediment to his success. Finally, it should be noted that at no time did…”

Constant v. United States, 16 Cl. Ct. 629 (Ct. Cl. 1989). · cites it 2× “You refused in your 20 October 1988 letter to petition the Commissioner of' Patents and Trademarks for modification of the secrecy order in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 5.5 , claiming that such a condition is not required under 35 U.”

Constant v. United States, 223 Ct. Cl. 148 (Ct. Cl. 1980). “A regulation authorized such an application for a permit to disclose ( 37 C.F.R. § 5.5 ) but plaintiff did not apply under it for authority to use the information commercially.”

Linick v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 319 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “See 37 CFR § 5.5 (providing a means to seek a modification to disclose the contents of a secrecy order).”

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.