Year 2016,
Volume: 3 Issue: 1, 99 - 148, 01.04.2016
Abstract
U.S. Patent Law regarding protection of the secrecy of inventions relating to defense technologies is one of the most improved national patent laws in terms of historical background and number of judicial precedents as well as elaborateness of the current legislation. In this article, historical background, legislation and practice of U.S. Patent Law regarding secrecy orders for patent applications relating to defense technologies have been studied by taking subjects such as procedures for issuance, types, features and effects of the secrecy orders as well as compensation right of the patent application owner into consideration
References
- • Aftergood, Steven, Invention Secrecy Activity (as reported by the Patent & Trademark Office), http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/stats.html (02.06.2016).
- • Birch, Richard J., “The Legislative History of Sections 184 and 185 – A Preventative Medicine Against Sudden Death to Patents”, J. Pat. Off. Soc’y, Vol. 48, Iss. 2 (Feb. ), s. 75-90. • Cass, Ronald A., Compulsory Licensing of Intellectual Property: The Exception That Ate The Rule?, WLF Working Paper Series No. 150, Washington 2007.
- • Clements, James D., “Improving Bayh-Dole: A Case for Inventor Ownership of Fede- rally Sponsored Research Patents”, IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review, Vol. , Iss. 4 (2009), s. 469-516.
- • Denny, James E., “Eminent Domain Aspects of 28 USC 1498”, Pat. Trademark &
- Copy. J. Res. & Ed., Vol. 4, Iss. 3 (Fall 1960), s. 257-275.
- • Eberle, Mary, “March-In Rights Under the Bayh-Dole Act: Public Access to Federally Funded Research”, Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev., Vol. 3 (1999), s. 155-180.
- • Eisenberg, Rebecca S., “Public Research and Private Development: Patents and Tech- nology Transfer in Government-Sponsored Research”, Va. L. Rev., Vol. 82, Iss. 8 (Nov. 1996), s. 1663-1728.
- • Fenning, Karl, “Patents and National Defense”, J. Pat. Off. Soc’y, Vol. 22, Iss. 12 (Dec. ), s. 869-884. • GAO-13-157, Protecting Defense Technologies, DOD Assessment Needed to Determi- ne Requirement for Critical Technologies List, Report to Congressional Committees, January 2013, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a577438.pdf (02.06.2016).
- • Geary, Jr, William L., “Protecting the Patent Rights of Small Business – Does the Bayh-Dole Act Live up to Its Promises”, AIPLA Q. J., Vol. 20, Iss. 1 (1992), s. 10-34.
- • Gilbert, Lee Ann, “Patent Secrecy Orders: The Unconstitutionality of Interference in Civilian Cryptography under Present Procedures”, Santa Clara L. Rev., Vol. 22 (1982), No. 2, s. 325-373.
- • Gulbrandsen, Carl E., “Bayh-Dole: Wisconsin Roots and Inspired Public Policy”, Wis. L. Rev., Vol. 2007, Iss. 6, s. 1149-1164.
- • Hausken, Gary L., “The Value of a Secret: Compensation for Imposition of Secrecy Orders Under the Invention Secrecy Act”, Mil. L. Rev., Vol. 119 (1988), s. 201-255.
- • Kundert, Thomas L., “Invention Secrecy Guide: Foreign Filling Licenses, Secrecy Or- ders and Export of Technical Data in Patent Applications”, J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y, Vol. 88, Iss. 8 (Aug. 2006), s. 667-698.
- • Lee, Sabing H., “Protecting the Private Inventor under the Peacetime Provisions of the Invention Secrecy Act”, Berkeley Tech. L.J., Vol. 12 (1997), Iss. 2, s. 345-411.
- • Shoemaker, William, D. “Secrecy of War Invention”, J. Pat. Off. Soc’y, Vol.1, Iss. 3 (Nov. 1918), s. 112-115.
- • Thomas, John R., Innovation and Intellectual Property Issues in Homeland Security, CRS Report for Congress, RL 32051 (2008), http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/ crs/ RL32051_080117.pdf (02.06.2016)
- • USPTO, MPEP, 8th edn., Aug. 2001 (Rev. 5, Aug. 2006), http://www.uspto.gov/ web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html (02.06.2016)
- • USPTO, MPEP, 9th edn. March 2014 (Rev.7.2015, Nov. 2015), http://www.uspto. gov/ web/offices/pac/mpep/old/index.htm (02.06.2016) KISALTMALAR d Cir.: United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit d Cir.: United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit
Year 2016,
Volume: 3 Issue: 1, 99 - 148, 01.04.2016
Abstract
References
- • Aftergood, Steven, Invention Secrecy Activity (as reported by the Patent & Trademark Office), http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/stats.html (02.06.2016).
- • Birch, Richard J., “The Legislative History of Sections 184 and 185 – A Preventative Medicine Against Sudden Death to Patents”, J. Pat. Off. Soc’y, Vol. 48, Iss. 2 (Feb. ), s. 75-90. • Cass, Ronald A., Compulsory Licensing of Intellectual Property: The Exception That Ate The Rule?, WLF Working Paper Series No. 150, Washington 2007.
- • Clements, James D., “Improving Bayh-Dole: A Case for Inventor Ownership of Fede- rally Sponsored Research Patents”, IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review, Vol. , Iss. 4 (2009), s. 469-516.
- • Denny, James E., “Eminent Domain Aspects of 28 USC 1498”, Pat. Trademark &
- Copy. J. Res. & Ed., Vol. 4, Iss. 3 (Fall 1960), s. 257-275.
- • Eberle, Mary, “March-In Rights Under the Bayh-Dole Act: Public Access to Federally Funded Research”, Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev., Vol. 3 (1999), s. 155-180.
- • Eisenberg, Rebecca S., “Public Research and Private Development: Patents and Tech- nology Transfer in Government-Sponsored Research”, Va. L. Rev., Vol. 82, Iss. 8 (Nov. 1996), s. 1663-1728.
- • Fenning, Karl, “Patents and National Defense”, J. Pat. Off. Soc’y, Vol. 22, Iss. 12 (Dec. ), s. 869-884. • GAO-13-157, Protecting Defense Technologies, DOD Assessment Needed to Determi- ne Requirement for Critical Technologies List, Report to Congressional Committees, January 2013, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a577438.pdf (02.06.2016).
- • Geary, Jr, William L., “Protecting the Patent Rights of Small Business – Does the Bayh-Dole Act Live up to Its Promises”, AIPLA Q. J., Vol. 20, Iss. 1 (1992), s. 10-34.
- • Gilbert, Lee Ann, “Patent Secrecy Orders: The Unconstitutionality of Interference in Civilian Cryptography under Present Procedures”, Santa Clara L. Rev., Vol. 22 (1982), No. 2, s. 325-373.
- • Gulbrandsen, Carl E., “Bayh-Dole: Wisconsin Roots and Inspired Public Policy”, Wis. L. Rev., Vol. 2007, Iss. 6, s. 1149-1164.
- • Hausken, Gary L., “The Value of a Secret: Compensation for Imposition of Secrecy Orders Under the Invention Secrecy Act”, Mil. L. Rev., Vol. 119 (1988), s. 201-255.
- • Kundert, Thomas L., “Invention Secrecy Guide: Foreign Filling Licenses, Secrecy Or- ders and Export of Technical Data in Patent Applications”, J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y, Vol. 88, Iss. 8 (Aug. 2006), s. 667-698.
- • Lee, Sabing H., “Protecting the Private Inventor under the Peacetime Provisions of the Invention Secrecy Act”, Berkeley Tech. L.J., Vol. 12 (1997), Iss. 2, s. 345-411.
- • Shoemaker, William, D. “Secrecy of War Invention”, J. Pat. Off. Soc’y, Vol.1, Iss. 3 (Nov. 1918), s. 112-115.
- • Thomas, John R., Innovation and Intellectual Property Issues in Homeland Security, CRS Report for Congress, RL 32051 (2008), http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/ crs/ RL32051_080117.pdf (02.06.2016)
- • USPTO, MPEP, 8th edn., Aug. 2001 (Rev. 5, Aug. 2006), http://www.uspto.gov/ web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html (02.06.2016)
- • USPTO, MPEP, 9th edn. March 2014 (Rev.7.2015, Nov. 2015), http://www.uspto. gov/ web/offices/pac/mpep/old/index.htm (02.06.2016) KISALTMALAR d Cir.: United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit d Cir.: United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit
There are 18 citations in total.
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Journal Section | Research Article |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | April 1, 2016 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2016 Volume: 3 Issue: 1 |