U.S. Code » Title 35 » Part PART II— PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS AND GRANT OF PATENTS › Chapter CHAPTER 17— SECRECY OF CERTAIN INVENTIONS AND FILING APPLICATIONS IN FOREIGN COUNTRY

35 U.S.C. § 185

Patent barred for filing without license

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 35 CasesGoogle Scholar

Notwithstanding any other provisions of law any person, and his successors, assigns, or legal representatives, shall not receive a United States patent for an invention if that person, or his successors, assigns, or legal representatives shall, without procuring the license prescribed in section 184, have made, or consented to or assisted another’s making, application in a foreign country for a patent or for the registration of a utility model, industrial design, or model in respect of the invention. A United States patent issued to such person, his successors, assigns, or legal representatives shall be invalid, unless the failure to procure such license was through error, and the patent does not disclose subject matter within the scope of section 181.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1959–2024 · leading case: In re Gaertner, 604 F.2d 1348 (C.C.P.A. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Gaertner, 604 F.2d 1348 (C.C.P.A. 1979). · cites it 6× “The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) affirmed the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 185 of application No. 599,574 filed July 28, 1975, and entitled “Oxazolidinone Phosphonates.”
Torin Corp. v. Philips Indus., Inc., 89 F.R.D. 346 (S.D. Ohio 1981). · cites it 10× “t patentable under 35 USC § 102 (b); and/or (3) Plaintiff had assisted in the application for a British design registration in respect to the invention prior to a period of time six months after the domestic application date without obtaining a license for foreign filing from…”
Aristocrat Tech. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech. & IGT, 543 F.3d 657 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “” Similarly, 35 U.S.C. § 185 states that a patent issued to a person who has violated the secrecy provisions of section 184 “shall be invalid,” except under certain circumstances.”
The Barr Rubber Prods. Co., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. The Sun Rubber Co., Defendant-Appellant-Cross & Wonder Prods. Co., 425 F.2d 1114 (2d Cir. 1970). “Barr contended on the motion for summary judgment that under the circumstances issuance of the retroactive license was improper as a matter of law, and therefore that, pursuant to the prohibition contained in 35 U.S.C. § 185 , Sun’s United States patent was invalid.”
Shelco, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 466 F.2d 613 (7th Cir. 1972). · cites it 2× “35 U.S.C. § 185 provides that a United States Patent shall be invalid where a foreign application for the same invention was made without the proper license.”
Transitron Elec. Corp. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., Transitron Elec. Corp. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 649 F.2d 871 (1st Cir. 1981). “” 35 U.S.C. § 185 provides in pertinent part: “Notwithstanding any other provisions of law any person, any of his successors, assigns, or legal representatives, shall not receive a United States patent for an invention if that person, or his successors, assigns or legal…”
Control Sys. Rsch., Inc. v. Aerotech, Inc., 429 F. Supp. 914 (W.D. Pa. 1977). · cites it 4× “§ 184 , and hence resulted in invalidity (by virtue of 35 U.S.C. § 185 ) of the United States patent issued to Bose.”
Transitron Elec. Corp. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 487 F. Supp. 885 (D. Mass. 1980). “§ 184 , by failing to obtain a license from the United States Patent Office to file the British Patent of Addition.”
Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Norton Co., 240 F. Supp. 150 (N.D. Ohio 1965). · cites it 2× “application is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 185 when issued. 3. These statutory provisions, 35 U.”
Barr Rubber Prods. Co. v. Sun Rubber Co., 253 F. Supp. 12 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). · cites it 2× “§ 184 and invalidated the patent ab initio un *16 der 35 U.S.C. § 185 . The court agreed. 15 Thereafter, plaintiff secured a retroactive license from the Commissioner and sought reconsideration of the court’s order.”
Twin Disc, Inc. v. United States, 10 Cl. Ct. 713 (Ct. Cl. 1986). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 185 , which states in pertinent part: “A United States patent issued to such person, his successors, assigns, or legal representatives shall be invalid.”
Stauffer Chem. Co. v. Monsanto Co., 623 F. Supp. 148 (E.D. Mo. 1985). “See 35 U.S.C. § 185 ; In Re Application of Gaertner, 604 F.”
Show all 21 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.