U.S. Code » Title 22 » Chapter CHAPTER 32— FOREIGN ASSISTANCE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS › Part Part I— General Provisions

22 U.S.C. § 2356

Patents and technical information

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 22 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Practice of invention or disclosure of information; suits against United States for reasonable compensation; jurisdiction; limitation of action; defensesWhenever, in connection with the furnishing of assistance under this chapter—(1) an invention or discovery covered by a patent issued by the United States Government is practiced within the United States without the authorization of the owner, or(2) information, which is (A) protected by law, and (B) held by the United States Government subject to restrictions imposed by the owner, is disclosed by the United States Government or any of its officers, employees, or agents in violation of such restrictions,the exclusive remedy of the owner, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, is to sue the United States Government for reasonable and entire compensation for such practice or disclosure in the district court of the United States for the district in which such owner is a resident, or in the United States Court of Federal Claims, within six years after the cause of action arises. Any period during which the United States Government is in possession of a written claim under subsection (b) of this section before mailing a notice of denial of that claim does not count in computing the six years. In any such suit, the United States Government may plead any defense that may be pleaded by a private person in such an action. The last paragraph of section 1498(a) of title 28 shall apply to inventions and information covered by this section.(b) Settlement of claims

Before suit against the United States Government has been instituted, the head of the agency of the United States Government concerned may settle and pay any claim arising under the circumstances described in subsection (a) of this section. No claim may be paid under this subsection unless the amount tendered is accepted by the claimant in full satisfaction.

(c) Drug products manufactured outside the United States

Funds appropriated pursuant to this chapter shall not be expended by the United States Government for the acquisition of any drug product or pharmaceutical product manufactured outside the United States if the manufacture of such drug product or pharmaceutical product in the United States would involve the use of, or be covered by, an unexpired patent of the United States which has not previously been held invalid by an unappealed or un­appealable judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, unless such manufacture is expressly authorized by the owner of such patent.

(Pub. L. 87–195, pt. III, § 606, Sept. 4, 1961, 75 Stat. 440; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 160(a)(6), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 48; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, § 902(b)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (c), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 87–195, Sept. 4, 1961, 75 Stat. 424, known as the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2151 of this title and Tables.

Amendments

1992—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–572 substituted “United States Court of Federal Claims” for “United States Claims Court”.

1982—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 97–164 substituted “United States Claims Court” for “Court of Claims”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–572 effective Oct. 29, 1992, see section 911 of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 171 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1972–2024 · leading case: Northrop Corp. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 705 F.2d 1030 (9th Cir. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Northrop Corp. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 705 F.2d 1030 (9th Cir. 1983). · cites it 5× “The principal issues are whether: (1) suit against the Government pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 2356 (disclosure of proprietary data) is the exclusive remedy; (2) the Government is a necessary party; (3) the claims present non-justiciable political or foreign policy questions; *1036…”
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 209 Ct. Cl. 446 (Ct. Cl. 1976). · cites it 3× “440 , 22 U.S.C. § 2356 ; Mutual Security Act of 1954, § 506, 68 Stat.”
Northrop Corp. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 498 F. Supp. 1112 (C.D. Cal. 1980). · cites it 6× “If that question lends itself to resolution in favor of MDC, then it is clear that NORTHROP’s exclusive remedy is against the United States pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 2356 (a)(2)(A) or. (b). Whatever the outcome of such a consideration, the interest of the United States Government…”
Gen. Elec. Co. v. United States, 228 Ct. Cl. 192 (Ct. Cl. 1981). · cites it 2× “§ 1498 (a) (1976), and for the unauthorized practice of the invention within the United States in connection with the furnishing of assistance to foreign governments under 22 U.S.C. § 2356 (a) (1976). United States Patent No.”
Sheridan v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. 127 (Fed. Cl. 2015). · cites it 3× “Motion to Dismiss; Patent Infringement; 22 U.S.C. § 2356 ; 28 U.S.C. § 1498 (a); For the Benefit of the Government; Authorization or Consent.”
Stephen Wyden v. Comm'r of Patents & Trademarks, 807 F.2d 934 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “(16) 22 U.S.C. § 2356 (suit against government in district court or Claims Court for unauthorized disclosure or practice of patented inventions).”
Advanced Tech. Sys. Co. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2024). · cites it 62× “22 U.S.C. § 2356 (a). In other words, Congress has chosen not to allow ATSC to get an injunction, but it does allow ATSC (if it proves an unlawful disclosure) to “go on, take the money and run.”
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm, 437 F. Supp. 75 (M.D. Fla. 1977). · cites it 2× “§ 1498 (a); 2) Personal jurisdiction over this defendant is lacking under 22 U.S.C. § 2356 (a)(1). Title 28, United States Code, Section 1498 (a) vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Claims over patent infringement claims arising upon either one or both of the following…”
Sheridan v. United States, 629 F. App'x 948 (Fed. Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “Sheridan also invokes a related federal statute, 22 U.S.C. § 2356 , but that statute, while it authorizes monetary relief against the government in some circumstances, does not do so on the facts alleged by Mr.”
Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. United States, 107 Fed. Cl. 659 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “held that foreign military sales were considered “use for the [Government,” the statutory basis for that ruling was 22 U.S.C. § 2356 , which is not at issue in this ease, nor is there any evidence of any Government use within the United States.”
Honeywell Int'l Inc. & Honeywell Intellectual Props., Inc. v. the United States 0, 114 Fed. Cl. 637 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “) with regard to the ’914 patent, including claims under the Foreign Assistance Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2356 , and the Invention Secrecy Act, 35 U.”
Pac. Technica Corp. v. United States, 11 Cl. Ct. 393 (Ct. Cl. 1986). “This action is not barred by the pertinent statute of limitations, 22 U.S.C. § 2356 (1982), because defendant admits procurement of the allegedly infringing devices within six years immediately preceding the commencement of this action.”
Show all 16 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.