Legal Opinion
Constant v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided October 19, 1982No. 406-78PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SETO, Judge:
The plaintiff in this action, James N. 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.S. patent application Serial No. 870,598. During the 15-month period in which the order was in effect, plaintiff was not permitted to disclose the details of his invention to certain classes of persons. Following rescission of the secrecy order, plaintiff’s application, titled “System for Identifying Objects Using an Encoding…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Kania v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1981
- M. D. Rutledge v. Electric Hose & Rubber CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- 6 Fair empl.prac.cas. 22, 6 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8685 Samuel L. Woods v. North American Rockwell Corporation, a Corporation, and Local 952, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (Uaw)Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1973
- Howard Industries, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1953
- Havelick v. Julius Wile Sons & Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1978
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Cities Service Pipe Line Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1983
- Doe v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1996
- Constant v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1989
- Lemelson v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1983
- Weiss v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2001
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.