Kaplan v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 1983
2 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 22 U.S.C. § 1811 · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 28 U.S.C. § 1498
Relies on 77 F. Supp. 927 - Fulmer v. United States · Ciaffone v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * In effect, the section (517 of the 1951 Act) makes applicable to patents and know-how used in the Mutual Security Program long established principles applicable to privately owned patents used by the United States Government. This section also affects the use of patents without prior authorization by the owner. At present, by the Act of June 25, 1910 [ 28 U.S.C. § 1498 ], a remedy is provided for a patentee against the United States in the Court of Claims when a patented invention is used for manufacture “by or for the United States.” It is important to remove any question as to the availability of this remedy in cases of infringements of United States patents in production for foreign governments. Otherwise, it might be possible for essential production to be stopped by injunction by an unsatisfied inventor. This section makes it clear that this remedy would be available only so long as the activities concerned form a part of the Mutual Security Program. Capt. George N. Robillard, Assistant Chief of Naval Research for Patents and patent counsel for the Navy, and Mr. Casper W. Ooms, consultant to the Secretary of Defense on patent matters, both strongly emphasized the importance of these provisions in supplying our allies )vith the materials so vital to the effectiveness of this program. It is the desire of the committee that no technicalities be permitted to stop the flow of such materials. (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) As used in this section— (1) the term “invention” means an invention or discovery covered by a patent issued by the United States; and (b) Whenever, in connection with the furnishing of any assistance in furtherance of the purposes of this Act— (1) use within the United States, without authorization by the owner, shall be made of an invention; * * * the exclusive remedy of the owner of such invention or information shall be by suit against the United States in the Court of Claims or in the District Court of the United States * * * for reasonable and entire compensation for unauthorized use or disclosure. * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) Whenever, in connection with the furnishing of assistance under this Act— (1) an invention or discovery covered by a patent issued by the United States Government is practiced within the United States without the authorization of the owner, * * * the exclusive remedy of the owner, * * * is to sue the United States Government for reasonable and entire compensation for such practice or disclosure in the district court of the United States * * *, or in the Court of Claims * * *.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.