An applicant, his successors, assigns, or legal representatives, whose patent is withheld as herein provided, shall have the right, beginning at the date the applicant is notified that, except for such order, his application is otherwise in condition for allowance, or February 1, 1952, whichever is later, and ending six years after a patent is issued thereon, to apply to the head of any department or agency who caused the order to be issued for compensation for the damage caused by the order of secrecy and/or for the use of the invention by the Government, resulting from his disclosure. The right to compensation for use shall begin on the date of the first use of the invention by the Government. The head of the department or agency is authorized, upon the presentation of a claim, to enter into an agreement with the applicant, his successors, assigns, or legal representatives, in full settlement for the damage and/or use. This settlement agreement shall be conclusive for all purposes notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary. If full settlement of the claim cannot be effected, the head of the department or agency may award and pay to such applicant, his successors, assigns, or legal representatives, a sum not exceeding 75 per centum of the sum which the head of the department or agency considers just compensation for the damage and/or use. A claimant may bring suit against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims or in the District Court of the United States for the district in which such claimant is a resident for an amount which when added to the award shall constitute just compensation for the damage and/or use of the invention by the Government. The owner of any patent issued upon an application that was subject to a secrecy order issued pursuant to section 181, who did not apply for compensation as above provided, shall have the right, after the date of issuance of such patent, to bring suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims for just compensation for the damage caused by reason of the order of secrecy and/or use by the Government of the invention resulting from his disclosure. The right to compensation for use shall begin on the date of the first use of the invention by the Government. In a suit under the provisions of this section the United States may avail itself of all defenses it may plead in an action under section 1498 of title 28. This section shall not confer a right of action on anyone or his successors, assigns, or legal representatives who, while in the full-time employment or service of the United States, discovered, invented, or developed the invention on which the claim is based.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
53
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1955–2021 · leading case:
Hornback v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 374 (Fed. Cl. 2002).
Hornback v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 374 (Fed. Cl. 2002).
· cites it 9× “Plaintiff further argues that the collateral estoppel doctrine does not apply with respect to whether 35 U.S.C. § 183 provides the exclusive remedy for plaintiffs damages.”
Hornback v. United States, 62 Fed. Cl. 1 (Fed. Cl. 2004).
· cites it 4× “4 In the first suit filed in the district court in California for damages resulting from the classification of his patent application and the imposition of a secrecy order on that application, plaintiff brought suit under the statutory provision, 35 U.S.C. § 183 (1988), 5…”
Constant v. United States, 16 Cl. Ct. 629 (Ct. Cl. 1989).
· cites it 7× “On November 29, 1988, the Navy- wrote plaintiff as follows: This office has twice, in letters dated 3 March 1988 and 3 October 1988, requested information to establish a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 183 . You refused in your 20 October 1988 letter to petition the Commissioner of'…”
Constant v. United States, 1 Cl. Ct. 600 (Ct. Cl. 1982).
· cites it 9× “35 U.S.C. § 183 provides a remedy for a patent owner affected by a secrecy order.”
Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
· cites it 2× “35 U.S.C. § 183 (emphasis added). Section 184 states that "[t]he term `application' when used in this chapter includes applications and any modifications, amendments, or supplements thereto, or divisions thereof.”
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States, 229 Ct. Cl. 323 (Ct. Cl. 1982).
· cites it 3× “§ 1498 (a) (1976) for the allegedly unauthorized purchase of an antitank missile system said to be covered by plaintiffs patent, and also under 35 U.S.C. § 183 (1976) for damages resulting from the imposition of a secrecy order on the missile design.”
Hornback v. United States, 85 F. App'x 758 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
· cites it 3× “99-168C, filed on March 24, 1999, Hornback sought ten minion dollars under 35 U.S.C. § 183 as just compensation for the government’s unauthorized use of the invention disclosed in his patent application on which a secrecy order was imposed.”
Foster v. United States, 230 Ct. Cl. 938 (Ct. Cl. 1982).
· cites it 5× “Ill 1979) for infringement of an invention covered by allowed claims in three patent applications, and under 35 U.S.C. §183 (1976) for damages associated with the imposition by the Central Intelligence Agency (cia) of a secrecy order on the subject matter of those applications.”
Damnjanovic v. United States Dep't of the Air Force, 135 F. Supp. 3d 601 (E.D. Mich. 2015).
· cites it 9× “PARKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiffs Budimir Damnjanovic and De-sanka Damnjanovic (“Plaintiffs”) seek compensation under the Invention Secrecy Act, 35 U.S.C. § 183 , among other things, for damages allegedly' resulting from two secrecy orders the Government imposed on…”
Weiss v. United States, 37 F. App'x 518 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
· cites it 6× “Weiss, Stephen Solender, Arthur Michael Solender, and Elsie Solender brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts under 35 U.S.C. § 183 . In then-action, they sought compensation from the United States for damages allegedly incurred as…”
Otto Halpern v. United States, 258 F.2d 36 (2d Cir. 1958).
· cites it 4× “The jurisdiction of the district court was based on 35 U.S.C. § 183 . A second cause of action sought damages under the Mutual Security Act of 1954, 22 U.”
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.