Whenever publication or disclosure by the publication of an application or by the grant of a patent on an invention in which the Government has a property interest might, in the opinion of the head of the interested Government agency, be detrimental to the national security, the Commissioner of Patents upon being so notified shall order that the invention be kept secret and shall withhold the publication of the application or the grant of a patent therefor under the conditions set forth hereinafter.
Whenever the publication or disclosure of an invention by the publication of an application or by the granting of a patent, in which the Government does not have a property interest, might, in the opinion of the Commissioner of Patents, be detrimental to the national security, he shall make the application for patent in which such invention is disclosed available for inspection to the Atomic Energy Commission, the Secretary of Defense, and the chief officer of any other department or agency of the Government designated by the President as a defense agency of the United States.
Each individual to whom the application is disclosed shall sign a dated acknowledgment thereof, which acknowledgment shall be entered in the file of the application. If, in the opinion of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Secretary of a Defense Department, or the chief officer of another department or agency so designated, the publication or disclosure of the invention by the publication of an application or by the granting of a patent therefor would be detrimental to the national security, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Secretary of a Defense Department, or such other chief officer shall notify the Commissioner of Patents and the Commissioner of Patents shall order that the invention be kept secret and shall withhold the publication of the application or the grant of a patent for such period as the national interest requires, and notify the applicant thereof. Upon proper showing by the head of the department or agency who caused the secrecy order to be issued that the examination of the application might jeopardize the national interest, the Commissioner of Patents shall thereupon maintain the application in a sealed condition and notify the applicant thereof. The owner of an application which has been placed under a secrecy order shall have a right to appeal from the order to the Secretary of Commerce under rules prescribed by him.
An invention shall not be ordered kept secret and the publication of the application or the grant of a patent withheld for a period of more than one year. The Commissioner of Patents shall renew the order at the end thereof, or at the end of any renewal period, for additional periods of one year upon notification by the head of the department or the chief officer of the agency who caused the order to be issued that an affirmative determination has been made that the national interest continues so to require. An order in effect, or issued, during a time when the United States is at war, shall remain in effect for the duration of hostilities and one year following cessation of hostilities. An order in effect, or issued, during a national emergency declared by the President shall remain in effect for the duration of the national emergency and six months thereafter. The Commissioner of Patents may rescind any order upon notification by the heads of the departments and the chief officers of the agencies who caused the order to be issued that the publication or disclosure of the invention is no longer deemed detrimental to the national security.
Notes of Decisions
Hornback v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 374 (Fed. Cl. 2002).
· cites it 3× “On August 24, 1987, the PTO imposed a secrecy order pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 181 . Id. On January 25, 1999, plaintiff filed this action seeking just compensation for the taking of his intellectual property.”
Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
· cites it 2× “The Court of Federal Claims also determined that Honeywell lacks standing under the Invention Secrecy Act because, according to the court, the '914 patent did not issue upon an application that was subject to a secrecy order pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 181 . See Honeywell Int'l, Inc.”
Constant v. United States, 1 Cl. Ct. 600 (Ct. Cl. 1982).
· cites it 7× “Constant, seeks compensation for certain damages allegedly caused by the imposition of a secrecy order under 35 U.S.C. § 181 . 1 The secrecy order in question was imposed during the prosecution of plaintiff’s U.”
Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 400 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
· cites it 2× “See 35 U.S.C. § 181 . 8 *420 The Complaint and Amended Complaint in this action properly invoke the court’s jurisdiction under both of these federal statutes that authorize the award of monetary damages.”
Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 224 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
· cites it 3× “On May 31, 2005, Honeywell filed an Amended Complaint, wherein Count 1, con *229 cerning the Invention Secrecy Act, alleged that: “From April 2, 1986 through September 7, 2000, Honeywell’s '269 patent application which matured into the '914 patent, was the subject of a Secrecy…”
Hornback v. United States, 56 Fed. Cl. 359 (Fed. Cl. 2003).
· cites it 2× “On August 24, 1987, the PTO imposed a secrecy order on his patent application pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 181 . 3 Id. About three weeks later, on September 17,1987, the PTO informed plaintiff that “the application was ‘in condition for allowance’ but that: ‘in view of the secrecy…”
Constant v. United States, 223 Ct. Cl. 148 (Ct. Cl. 1980).
· cites it 2× “805 , 35 U.S.C. §§ 181 et seq., authorizes the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, when a patent application has been filed and the publication or disclosure of the invention by the grant of a patent might be detrimental to the national security, to order that the invention…”
Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 596 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
· cites it 2× “The Court of Federal Claims also determined that Honeywell lacks standing under the Invention Secrecy Act because, according to the court, the ’914 patent did not issue upon an application that was subject to a secrecy order pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 181 . See Honeywell Int’l, Inc.”
Radioptics, Inc. v. United States, 223 Ct. Cl. 594 (Ct. Cl. 1980).
“35 U.S.C. § 181 . Based on the chronology of events, it may be reasonably inferred that the action was taken as a consequence of Radioptics’ inquiry earlier that month.”
Alton B. Hornback v. United States, 405 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
“The PTO imposed a secrecy order pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 181 on August 24, 1987, issued a Notice of Allowability on September 17, 1987, but withheld the application from issue because of the secrecy order.”
Campbell Plastics Eng'g & Mfg., Inc. v. Les Brownlee, Acting Sec'y of the Army, 389 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
“Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) made the application available to the Army for the limited purpose of making a secrecy determination pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 181 (1994). Pursuant to the USPTO’s request, the Army reviewed Campbell Plastics’s application by January 30,1998.”
Hornback v. United States, 36 Fed. Cl. 552 (Fed. Cl. 1996).
· cites it 2× “On August 24, 1987, at the request of the Air Force, the Patent and Trademark Office imposed a secrecy order on the patent application pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 181 . The effect of the “SECRET” classification was to restrict disclosure of the invention and similarly, the effect 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.