16 U.S.C. § 831r

Patents; access to Patent and Trademark Office and right to copy patents; compensation to patentees

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar

The Corporation, as an instrumentality and agency of the Government of the United States for the purpose of executing its constitutional powers, shall have access to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the purpose of studying, ascertaining, and copying all methods, formula, and scientific information (not including access to pending applications for patents) necessary to enable the Corporation to use and employ the most efficacious and economical process for the production of fixed nitrogen, or any essential ingredient of fertilizer, or any method of improving and cheapening the production of hydroelectric power, and any owner of a patent whose patent rights may have been thus in any way copied, used, infringed, or employed by the exercise of this authority by the Corporation shall have as the exclusive remedy a cause of action against the Corporation to be instituted and prosecuted on the equity side of the appropriate district court of the United States, for the recovery of reasonable compensation for such infringement. The Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office shall furnish to the Corporation, at its request and without payment of fees, copies of documents on file in his office: Provided, That the benefits of this section shall not apply to any art, machine, method of manufacture, or composition of matter, discovered or invented by such employee during the time of his employment or service with the Corporation or with the Government of the United States.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases, 1962–2010 · leading case: Alco Standard Corp. v. Tennessee Valley Authority

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Alco Standard Corp. v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1986) cafc · cites it 5× “There is no reason to believe that Congress intended the regional circuits rather than this court to hear appeals in this narrow category of infringement cases. The earlier decision of the district court in this case, dismissing the suit against Westinghouse, is not inconsistent…”

Mays v. Tennessee Valley Authority (2010) tned · cites it 2× “The Applicability of the Discretionary Function Doctrine to TVA The TVA Act designates TVA as “an instrumentality and agency of the Govern *1005 ment of the United States[J” 16 U.S.C. § 831r. The United States Supreme Court has recognized TVA’s status as a federal agency.”

Stephen Wyden v. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks (1986) cafc “(10) 16 U.S.C. § 831r (Tennessee Valley Authority’s access to patents; suits against the TVA for patent infringement).”

Alco Standard Corp. v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1978) tnwd · cites it 2× “This case presents novel questions of construction regarding Section 19 of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act, 16 U.S.C. § 831r, and the patent venue statute, 28 U.”

Helfgott & Karas, P.C., and Dov Sheffer and R.S.R. Adtec Ltd. v. Q. Todd Dickenson, Director of the United States Patent (2000) cafc “1985) (claims related to PTO’s refusal to accept an unsigned check for purposes of computing a filing date arise under the patent laws).”

Jackson v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1978) tnmd “Section 19 of the TVA Act, 16 U.S.C. § 831r, specifically denominated TVA as “an instrumentality and agency of the Government of the United States for the purpose of executing its constitutional powers.”

United States v. General Electric Company (1962) paed “” 16 U.S.C.A. § 831r. K is one of some 40 governmental1 corporations listed in a footnote in Keifer & Keifer v.”

Alco Standard Corp. v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1984) tnwd · cites it 2× “” 16 U.S.C. § 831r. Westinghouse is indemnifying TVA for any infringement resulting from these inspec *137 tions, and although named as third-party defendant, Westinghouse has actively conducted the defense to this lawsuit.”

In Re Uranium Industry Antitrust Litigation (1978) jpml “, 16 U.S.C. § 831r. TVA contends, however, that it is an entity separate and distinct from the United States for the purpose of suing as a plaintiff under the antitrust laws, and hence does not fall within the ambit of the Section 1407(g) exclusion.”

Hoke Co., Inc. v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1987) kywd “Such pronouncements are not particularly helpful to the resolution of this case. On point on the issue of TVA’s immunity from suit is Queen v.”

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Watkins (1993) cafc “1986) (suit under 16 U.S.C. § 831r against the Tennessee Valley Authority for reasonable compensation for patent infringement is based on section 1338(a) jurisdiction), cert.”

Webster County Coal Corp. v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1979) kywd “1949); 16 U.S.C.A. § 831r (1974); and that its actions were valid government actions and therefore exempt from antitrust liability.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

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.