United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-1543
ALTON B. HORNBACK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
Alton B. Hornback, of San Diego, California, pro se.
Susan L.C. Mitchell, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. With
her on the brief were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, and John Fargo, Director.
Appealed from: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Judge Janis L. Sammartino
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-1543
ALTON B. HORNBACK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in case
no. 07-CV-00289, Judge Janis L. Sammartino.
___________________________
DECIDED: April 15, 2010
___________________________
Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, and RADER, Circuit Judges, and FOLSOM, District
Judge. *
RADER, Circuit Judge.
Alton B. Hornback appeals an order from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim under
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the Invention Secrecy
Act, 35 U.S.C. § 183, does not provide Mr. Hornback with a cause of action for the
government’s use of an invention subject to a secrecy order after the issuance of a
patent on that invention, this court affirms.
*
Honorable David Folsom, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
I.
Mr. Hornback is the named inventor of U.S. Patent No. 6,079,666 (the “’666
patent”), titled “Real Time Boresight Error Slope Sensor.” The ’666 patent resulted from
an application that Mr. Hornback filed on April 25, 1986. The Air Force subsequently
classified Mr. Hornback’s application as “secret” and, accordingly, the United States
Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) imposed a secrecy order under 35 U.S.C. § 181.
On September 17, 1987, the PTO issued a “Notice of Allowability” that stated that the
application was “in condition for allowance” but that “in view of the secrecy order issued
August 24, 1987, under 35 U.S.C. (1952) 181, this application will be withheld from
issue during such period as the national interest requires.” The government rescinded
the secrecy order on April 21, 1999, and the ’666 patent issued on June 27, 2000.
Mr. Hornback, who is pursuing his claim pro se, seeks compensation under 35
U.S.C. § 183 for the government’s use of the invention. Initially, Mr. Hornback sought
compensation for government use that occurred both before and after the issuance of
the patent. The district court, however, held that res judicata barred Mr. Hornback’s
claims for any government use that occurred on or before July 5, 2000. Mr. Hornback
does not challenge that ruling on appeal.
As a result of the district court’s res judicata ruling, Mr. Hornback’s claim for
compensation was limited to government use that occurred after issuance of the ’666
patent. Relying on that limitation, the government moved to dismiss the complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that “pursuant to the express terms of [section
183], an applicant’s right to compensation is limited to recovering for wrongful use
occurring only during the time during [sic] which a secrecy order is pending” and
2009-1543 2
therefore that “Hornback has no cause of action for unauthorized governmental use of
his invention under 35 U.S.C. § 183 occurring after April 21, 1999.”
The district court, construing the government’s motion as one for failure to state a
claim, granted the government’s motion to dismiss. The district court held that under
section 183 damages are recoverable for government use only during the pendency of
a secrecy order.
Mr. Hornback timely appealed to this court, arguing that section 183 gives him
the right to compensation for government use that occurred after the ’666 patent issued.
This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
II.
A.
Because the district court dismissed this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6), this court’s review is de novo. Barker v. Riverside County Office of Educ., 584
F.3d 821, 824 (9th Cir. 2009); see CoreBrace LLC v. Star Seismic LLC, 566 F.3d 1069,
1072 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The question whether a Rule 12(b)(6) motion was properly
granted is a purely procedural question not pertaining to patent law, to which this court
applies the rule of the regional circuit.”) (quotation marks and alterations omitted). In an
appeal from the dismissal of an action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), “we accept as true the
facts alleged in the complaint” and “must draw inferences in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff.” Barker, 584 F.3d at 824 (quotation marks omitted).
B.
The Invention Secrecy Act entered the U.S. Code on July 19, 1952. 66 Stat. 805
(current version at 35 U.S.C. §§ 181-188). It authorizes government agencies to make
2009-1543 3
a determination that the publication or disclosure of an invention described in an
application for a patent “would be detrimental to the national security.” 35 U.S.C. § 181.
If a government agency makes such a determination, it “shall notify the Commissioner
of Patents and the Commissioner of Patents shall order that the invention be kept secret
and shall withhold publication of the application or the grant of a patent for such period
as the national interest requires.” Id. Once a secrecy order has issued, “[t]he
Commissioner of Patents may rescind [the] order upon notification by the heads of the
departments and the chief legal officers of the agencies who caused the order to be
issued that the publication or disclosure of the invention is no longer deemed
detrimental to the national security.” Id.
Section 183 authorizes an applicant whose invention was subject to a secrecy
order to seek “compensation for the damage caused by the order of secrecy and/or for
the use of the invention by the Government, resulting from his disclosure.” That section
describes two avenues an applicant may follow to obtain relief.
First, an applicant may apply for compensation directly from the head of the
department or agency that sought imposition of the secrecy order. If the applicant is
unhappy with the award that the government department or agency provides, the
claimant may bring suit against the United States either in the United States Court of
Federal Claims or in the District Court of the United States for the district in which the
claimant is a resident “for an amount which when added to the award [provided directly
from the government department or agency] shall constitute just compensation for the
damage and/or use of the invention by the Government.” If applicants choose this first
avenue, they may apply for compensation from the department or agency “beginning at
2009-1543 4
the date the applicant is notified that, except for [the secrecy order], his application is
otherwise in condition for allowance . . . and ending six years after a patent is issued
thereon.”
Second, rather than apply first for compensation from a government department
or agency, section 183 also gives an applicant the right “to bring suit in the United
States Court of Federal Claims for just compensation for the damage caused by reason
of the order of secrecy and/or use by the Government of the invention resulting from his
disclosure.” Id. In order to file suit without first seeking relief directly from the
government department or agency, however, the claimant must wait until “after the date
of issuance of [the] patent.” Id.
This appeal provides this court with its first opportunity to squarely address
whether the “use of the invention by the Government” language in section 183 includes
use of the invention that occurred after the patent for the invention has issued.
Although the district court declared that that phrase only covers use during the
pendency of a secrecy order, the facts of this case demonstrate that there can be a time
lag (here, over one year) from when the PTO rescinds a secrecy order and when the
patent actually issues. Because Hornback does not dispute that res judicata bars his
claim for compensation as to that time period, this court does not need to address
whether section 183 might encompass use after a secrecy order is rescinded but before
the patent issues.
The terms of section 183 are broadly stated: “use of the invention” is not explicitly
limited to use before a patent for the invention has issued. In interpreting a statute,
however, “we must not be guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence, but
2009-1543 5
look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy.” U.S. Nat'l Bank of
Or. v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 455 (1993) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Looking to other relevant provisions of law, this court notes that 28 U.S.C. § 1498
is closely related. Section 1498(a) enables a patent owner to file suit against the
government in the Court of Federal Claims for government use of a patented invention.
That section states, “Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the
United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States . . . the owner’s
remedy shall be by action against the United States in the United States Court of
Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use
and manufacture.” (emphasis added). The language of section 1498(a) is mandatory,
and therefore grants the Court of Federal Claims exclusive jurisdiction to hear all claims
against the government arising out of post-issuance government use of an invention.
Crater Corp. v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 255 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001). That
exclusive jurisdiction has been established since 1918. 40 Stat. 705 (1918). This court
presumes that the later enactment of the Invention Secrecy Act took this important
existing law into account. See Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19, 32 (1990).
Absent modification to the Court of Federal Claims’ exclusive jurisdiction, the Invention
Secrecy Act could not have established a remedy for claims insofar as they allege post-
issuance government use.
Section 183 is also closely related to 35 U.S.C. § 181. Section 181 provides two
kinds of disclosures related to section 183’s phrase “use of the invention . . . resulting
from his disclosure.” (emphasis added). The first is the applicant’s disclosure of the
2009-1543 6
invention in his patent application, and the second is the disclosure by the
Commissioner of Patents to officers of a government department or agency. Both types
of disclosures concern non-public disclosures; in contrast, once a patent has issued, the
invention is publicly disclosed. Because section 181 concerns non-public disclosures,
this court determines that section 183 similarly provides a remedy only for use of an
invention that has not been publicly disclosed by the PTO.
Finally, returning to the section at issue, the six-year post-issuance deadline in
section 183, which cuts off a patentee’s right to apply to a department or agency for
compensation, stands in contrast to the six-year statute of limitations for patent
infringement damages generally, found in 35 U.S.C. § 286. If the Invention Secrecy Act
had sought to make the department or agency route available for post-issuance use, it
would not have arbitrarily cut off the right to apply for compensation for such use after
only six years post-issuance, rather than simply adopting the six-year statute of
limitations found in section 286. Instead, by cutting off the right to even apply for
compensation at six years after the patent issues, it appears that the Invention Secrecy
Act only addressed recovery for the limited period of pre-issuance use.
Mr. Hornback contends that the legislative history of the Invention Secrecy Act
compels this court to construe section 183 in his favor. In particular, Mr. Hornback
relies on the following exchange between Paul Rose, who was testifying on behalf of
the American Patent Law Association, and Congressman Edwin Willis from Louisiana:
Mr. Rose. Now, as to use by the Government the Government has the
right to the use of the invention upon the payment of compensation.
Mr. Willis. But it has that right today, without this act, as provided by the
act of 1910.
Mr. Rose. No, but the difference between this act and the act of 1910 is
that if the Government uses an invention which is placed under a
2009-1543 7
secrecy order, then after the patent issues the inventor, the
patentee, may collect for the use of it prior to the date of issuance
of the patent. In other words, he may carry his claim back to the
first date of use by the Government, whereas under the act of 1910
you only collect for damages after the issuing date of the
patent. . . . .
Mr. Willis. In other words, this applies to a case for damages after a
patent has issued?
Mr. Rose. That is right.
Mr. Willis. And in this case it gives a cause of action to the patentee
prior to the date of issuance of the patent?
Mr. Rose. Yes, sir; that is correct.
Patent Disclosure: Hearing Before Subcomm. No. 3 of the H. Comm. On the Judiciary,
82nd Cong. 20 (1951) (emphasis added). This court finds the preceding passage
ambiguous at best. Mr. Hornback assumes that the pronoun “this” in the emphasized
portion of the excerpt refers to section 183. But that pronoun could just as easily be a
reference to the act of 1910, which appears to be a reference to the predecessor to
section 1498. See 40 Stat. 705. Indeed, because the entire passage deals with the
contrast between that earlier act and section 183, the legislative history on which Mr.
Hornback relies appears to counsel against his interpretation rather than for it.
In sum, this court holds that “use of the invention” in 35 U.S.C. § 183 does not
include use of an invention after a patent for the invention has issued. This
interpretation is consistent with the reading provided by this court’s predecessor, which
noted, in dicta, that “[s]ection 183 provides for damages to be paid to patent holders in
two situations: when the Government wrongfully uses the patented device during the
period of secrecy, and when the secrecy order itself causes damages.” McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. United States, 670 F.2d 156, 163 (Ct. Cl. 1982) (emphasis added).
Although this interpretation is inconsistent with that provided by Farrand Optical Co. v.
United States, 197 F. Supp. 756, 758 (S.D.N.Y. 1961), rev’d, 317 F.2d 875, 883 (2d Cir.
2009-1543 8
1962), aff’d en banc by an equally divided court, 317 F.2d 875, 883 (2d Cir. 1963), this
court, for the reasons addressed above and to honor its predecessor court, declines to
follow that case.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California dismissing Mr. Hornback’s case for failure to state a
claim is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
Each party shall bear its own costs.
2009-1543 9