An Overview on the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951

The purpose of the Invention Secrecy Act, 1951

The Invention Secrecy Act was created to restrict the exportation of classified information that may be potentially detrimental to the security of the country. In other words, the Act enables governments to impose “secrecy orders” on a patent application that comprises of classified information that is sensitive in nature, thus restricting the disclosure of any information pertaining to the invention and withholding the grant of a patent for that particular invention. The Act’s provisions can be imposed upon private individuals or companies as well if the requirement arises. In sum, the Invention Secrecy Act prevents the disclosure of inventions or technologies if the information provided in the patent application poses a threat to the national security of the United States. The origin of the Invention Secrecy Act can be traced back to 1914, during World War I. During the war, Congress had authorized the United States Patent and Trademark Office to segregate patent applications into a separate category of defense-related patents. Initially, the act was in force only during the period of World War I. However, the Act was also imposed in October 1941 due to anticipations surrounding the US’s entry into World War II. Over 11,200 patent applications were classified as confidential information. Consequently, such patent applications were under secrecy orders. Moreover, notices were issued to inventors in order to restrict them from disclosing information related to the invention or filing the application in foreign countries for security reasons. Most often than not, inventions related to radars, radio systems, and other electronic items received such secrecy orders.

The Patent Security Category Review List

In order to classify such inventions, defense agencies such as the Army, Navy, Air force, NSA, NASA, and the Department of Energy issues a “Patent Security Category Review List”. The technologies that are enlisted under this Act are not known to the public. Thus, it is not possible to decipher what inventions fall under the purview of this Act. However, technologies that carry great relevance in military-related operations are often classified as secrets. This may include inventions such as weapons, cryptography-related technologies, and atomic energy-related inventions.

The procedure for issuing a secrecy order

A secrecy order is often issued when the government holds a property interest in the invention. Property interest includes the ownership of all rights pertaining to the invention. In some cases, the Government is entitled to the interest of only one or more joint inventors. Several Courts have adjudicated that a government property interest may include “inventions made by government employees either as part of their normal duties or on their own behalf on which patent applications have been filed by the government” as well as “inventions made by government contractors during the performance of their contractual duties. Since all government-controlled interests in patent applications are registered in the Patent Office’s Government register, it is fairly easy to determine if a government property interest exists over an invention. In sum, it can be said that the decision to issue a secrecy order subsists on government agencies who may have an interest in the invention. However, in order to establish that the government has a property interest in the invention, it is imperative that the contents of the patent application are capable of potentially creating a threat to national security. Patent applications that are created as a part of contractor research (unlike in-house research that is carried out by governmental organizations) may also receive secrecy orders if it consists of information that is sensitive in nature.

In certain cases, the Government may not have a property interest in the invention. With respect to this, the 1951 Act states as follows:

“Whenever the publication or disclosure of an invention by the granting of a patent, in which the Government does not have a property interest, might, in the opinion of the Commissioner, 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. If disclosure of the invention by the granting of a patent, therefore, would be detrimental to national security, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Secretary of a defense department, or such other chief officer shall notify the commissioner and the commissioner shall order that the invention be kept secret and shall withhold the grant of a patent  for such period as the national interest requires”

Essentially, the Patent Office plays a significant role in issuing secrecy orders in cases wherein Governments have no property interests over the invention.

The impact of a secrecy order

Upon issuing a secrecy order for a particular invention, it is examined for patentability purposes. Following this, the Patent Office issues a ‘notice of allowability’. The notice of allowability plays a crucial role in ending any prosecution pertaining to the patent application. As a result, even if the patent application deals with an invention that is a patentable subject matter, it will not be granted a patent unless the government rescinds the secrecy order. Moreover, any appeals that are related to the patent application will be not be heard before the Board of Patent Appeals unless the secrecy order is lifted.

A secrecy order also restricts the dissemination of any information related to the patent application. The invention will be kept a complete secret by sending the inventor a notice of the secrecy order. Moreover, the inventor is restricted from publishing or disclosing any information related to the invention to a party that is completely unaware of the invention. It is pertinent to note that the violation of the secrecy order is often met with penalties. According to 35 U.S.C S. 182, an inventor who may violate the secrecy order by disclosing or publishing information related to the invention shall upon conviction, be fined $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than two years or both. Thus, it can be inferred that the Secrecy Act plays a pivotal role in ensuring that patent applications that may pose to be a threat to national security are regulated effectively with the help of secrecy orders.

Author: Sanjana, a BBA LLB student of  Symbiosis Law School (Hyderabad), in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at vidushi@khuranaandkhurana.com or Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys.

Leave a Reply

Categories

Archives

  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010