View source for Invention Secrecy Act

{{short description|Law that allows the USA to classify any invention deemed a 'national security' threat.}}
{{Use American English|date=January 2019}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=January 2019}}
{{Infobox legislation
| short_title         = Invention Secrecy Act of 1951
| legislature         = [[United States Congress]]
| image               =
| imagesize           =
| imagealt            =
| caption             =
| long_title          = An Act to provide for the withholding of certain patents that might be detrimental to the national security, and for other purposes
| citation            = 66 Stat. 3
| enacted_by          =
| date_enacted        = February 1, 1952
| date_passed         =
| enacted_by2         =
| date_enacted2       =
| date_passed2        =
| date_assented       =
| royal_assent        =
| date_commenced      =
| bill                =
| bill_citation       = {{USStatute|82|256|66|3|1952|02|01}}
| bill_date           =
| introduced_by       =
| 1st_reading         =
| 2nd_reading         =
| 3rd_reading         =
| committee_report    =
| bill2               =
| bill_citation2      =
| bill_date2          =
| introduced_by2      =
| 1st_reading2        =
| 2nd_reading2        =
| 3rd_reading2        =
| committee_report2   =
| white_paper         =
| amendments          =
| repeals             =
| related_legislation =
| summary             =
| keywords            =
| status              =
}}
{{United States patent law}}
{{Infobox United States Code}}

The '''Invention Secrecy Act of 1951''' ({{USStatute|82|256|66|3|1952|02|01}}, codified at {{Usc-title-chap|35|17}}) is a body of [[United States federal law]] designed to [[Classified information in the United States|prevent disclosure]] of new [[invention]]s and [[technologies]] that, in the opinion of selected [[List of United States federal agencies|federal agencies]], present an alleged threat to the [[economic stability]] or [[national security]] of the [[United States]].

The Invention Secret Act allows the United States government to classify ideas and patents under ''"[[#Types_of_Secrecy_Orders|Secrecy Orders]]"'', which indefinitely restrict public knowledge of them.<ref name="Saltz Texas A&M February 22, 2022" /> The law applies to all inventions in the United States regardless of what the idea or invention is, if a patent is applied for or granted.<ref name="Locke Indiana 2019"|pages=3-4 />{{UnitedStatesCode|35|181}} All patents filed within the United States are required to be reviewed, and thousands of ideas and inventions are manually reviewed every year.<ref name="Locke Indiana 2019"|page=4 /><ref name="Shulz Wired April 13, 2013" /> Any Federal government agency with "classifying powers" may request any patent be restricted under the Invention Secrecy Act.<ref name="Sanders Reason 1981" />

Ideas restricted by the Invention Secrecy Act's Secrecy Orders can be prohibited from any [[public disclosure]]; sales to any party except the [[Military–industrial complex|United States military industry]] or [[Export Administration Regulations|exports to other nations]] can be prohibited; and can even be [[Classified information in the United States|sealed from the public as classified]].<ref name="Dilawar Slate May 9, 2018" /><ref name="Gross NBER July 1, 2019" /><ref name="Saltz Texas A&M February 22, 2022" /> Any appeals are limited to the United States Federal agency that itself restricted the ideas.<ref name="Dilawar Slate May 9, 2018" />  The [[United States Patent and Trademark Office]] has investigated the possibility of restricting new technologies if those new ideas may be disruptive to existing industries.<ref name="CEPR manifold impacts April 19, 2022" /> The Invention Secrecy Act has been criticized for lack of oversight and impacts on future scientific research by inventors, industry, attorneys and academics.<ref name="Saltz Texas A&M February 22, 2022" /><ref name="Dilawar Slate May 9, 2018" /><ref name="CEPR manifold impacts April 19, 2022" /><ref name="IJIO Patents study December 23, 2023" />

==World War I and II background==
The [[United States government]] has long sought to control the release of new technologies that might threaten the [[defense (military)|national defense]] and [[economic stability]] of the country. During [[World War I]], [[Congress of the United States|Congress]] authorized the [[United States Patent and Trademark Office]] (PTO) to classify certain defense-related patents. That wartime program lapsed after the Armistice but was re-imposed in October 1941 as the United States prepared to enter [[World War II]]. Secrecy orders were intended to last two years beginning 1 July 1940, yet they remained in force for the rest of the war.<ref name="Gross HBS March 13, 2019 full paper" /> Through World War II alone, at least 11,000 inventions were submitted for classification review, and other research found that about 8 475 inventions were actually placed under secrecy—roughly 75 percent of all new inventions reviewed during that period, when more than 20,000 total patents were screened.<ref name="CEPR manifold impacts April 19, 2022" /><ref name="Gross NBER July 1, 2019" />

The final version of the 1917 World War I–era statute directed the Commissioner of Patents to restrict inventions when they were:

{{blockquote| text=…detrimental to the public safety or defense, or may assist the enemy or endanger the successful prosecution of the war, [the Commissioner of Patents] may order that the invention be kept secret and withhold the grant of a patent until the end of the war.<ref name="Rand IAS September 19, 2019" />}}

==Invention Secrecy Act of 1951==

The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 made such patent secrecy permanent, though the order to suppress any invention must be renewed each year, except during periods of declared war or national emergency.<ref name="USPTO 120 Secrecy Orders January 31, 2024" /> Under this Act, [[List of United States federal agencies#Department of Defense|defense agencies]] provide the patent office with a classified list of sensitive technologies in the form of the "Patent Security Category Review List" (PSCRL).<ref name="USPTO 120 Secrecy Orders January 31, 2024" /> The decision to classify new inventions under this act is made by "defense agencies" as defined by the President,<ref name="USPTO 120 Secrecy Orders January 31, 2024" /> These agencies include the [[United States Army|Army]], [[United States Navy|Navy]], [[United States Air Force|Air Force]], [[National Security Agency]], [[United States Department of Energy|Department of Energy]], [[Department of Homeland Security]], [[NASA]], but even the [[United States Department of Justice|Justice Department]] has played this role.<ref name="Shulz Wired April 13, 2013" /> If government officials determine the idea and invention can pose a threat, it can be restricted from the public with a Secrecy Order.<ref name="Saltz Texas A&M February 22, 2022" /> Any Federal government agency, not just those associated with the military and intelligence community, may request any patent be restricted under the Invention Secrecy Act if that agency itself has the power to classify data as restricted.<ref name="Sanders Reason 1981" />

A Secrecy Order bars the award of a patent, orders that the invention be kept secret, restricts the filing of foreign patents, and specifies procedures to prevent disclosure of ideas contained in the application.<ref name="Dilawar Slate May 9, 2018" /> By law, the government is only required to compensate the inventor of a restricted idea for 75% of its value as deemed by the agency restricting it, and the inventor must demonstrate they suffered damages.<ref name="Maunea TIPLJ Summer 2012"|page=2 /> However, inventors find it difficult if not impossible to prove suffered harm under the Invention Secrecy Act due to their inability to disclose the invention.<ref name="Maunea TIPLJ Summer 2012"|page=2 /> Disclosure of inventions or ideas restricted by a Secrecy Order can lead to arrest and imprisonment for up to two years in Federal prison.<ref name="Shulz Wired April 13, 2013" /><ref name="Maunea TIPLJ Summer 2012"|page=4-5 /> If an inventor attempts to release the ideas in a foreign country without authorization, the invention and idea can be held as legally "abandoned."<ref name="Maunea TIPLJ Summer 2012"|page=4-5 /> In the 1958 court case ''Robinson vs United States'', the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]] ruled inventors could not sue the government to appeal Secrecy Orders until the secrecy itself was [[rescind]]ed, citing national security concerns; this standing held through at least 1963.<ref name="Dignan Michigan 1963" />

Each year, tens of thousands of inventions and patent applications are reviewed by hand to decide if they should be allowed to be published or should be hidden from the public.<ref name="Shulz Wired April 13, 2013" /> As of 1997, it was reported that five to ten percent of all patents that the American military reviews under the ISA become subject to Secrecy Orders.<ref name="Lee Berkeley BTLJ ISA Sep 1997" /> In the four-year window of 2013 to 2017, an average of 117 new inventions per year were restricted with Secrecy Orders.<ref name="Dilawar Slate May 9, 2018" /> In the same 2013-2017 period of time, an average of 25 Secrecy Orders were reportedly rescinded per year.<ref name="Dilawar Slate May 9, 2018" /> In 2017, the [[Federation of American Scientists]] reported that 5,784 patents were restricted under Secrecy Orders.<ref name="Dilawar Slate May 9, 2018" /> 5,792 unique patents were under Secrecy Orders as of 2018.<ref name="Rand IAS September 19, 2019" />

Through 2012-2020, the United States Patent Office began investigations into expanding application of the Invention Secret Act to have more consideration of economic impacts on American markets from new inventions, if those new ideas may be disruptive to existing industries.<ref name="CEPR manifold impacts April 19, 2022" /> Attempts through 2020 to expand the scope of the Invention Secrecy Act in Congress were unsuccessful, attributed to lobbying from groups such as the [[American Bar Association]].<ref name="Senz Forbes 2020" />

===Invention Secrecy Act screening process===

The law applies to all inventions created in the United States, regardless of their nature or nationality of the creators, despite that the "vast majority" of inventions have no legal or financial stake from the government.<ref name="Locke Indiana 2019"|pages=3-4 /> All patents filed within the United States are required to be screened for the Invention Secrecy Act.<ref name="Locke Indiana 2019"|page=4 /> Each year, tens of thousands of new inventions and patent applications are manually reviewed to decide if they should be hidden from the public.<ref name="Shulz Wired April 13, 2013" />

Inventions which received any government funding toward their research and development will be reviewed, beyond any military departments or intelligence agencies, by the segment of the United States government that had a funding and research stake in them.<ref name="Locke Indiana 2019"|page=4 /> The vast majority of patent applications, ideas and inventions have no government affiliation.<ref name="Locke Indiana 2019"|page=4 /> For those ideas and inventions from the general public, the Commissioner for Patents of the United States Patent and Trademark Office makes any initial decision whether or not the idea will endanger national security.<ref name="Locke Indiana 2019"|page=4 />

Once the application and screening process begins, there are three possible outcomes.<ref name="Locke Indiana 2019"|page=4 /> The first outcome is that the patent and an associated foreign patent filing license may simply be granted, and the Invention Secrecy Act would not bind or restrict that given idea.<ref name="Locke Indiana 2019"|page=4 /> The second option is that the government may simply do nothing, which allows the creators of the idea and invention to pursue it fully in United States and foreign markets.<ref name="Locke Indiana 2019"|page=5 /> In either of these first two scenarios, the government has a six-month window from the patent filing to take any or no action.<ref name="Locke Indiana 2019"|page=5 />

The third and last option is that a Secrecy Order is compelled on the idea and invention.<ref name="Locke Indiana 2019"|page=5 /> The creators are then forbidden from sharing, disclosing, discussing, developing, selling or marketing the ideas within the United States or in foreign nations.<ref name="Locke Indiana 2019"|page=5 />

===Types of Secrecy Orders===

[[File:1790- United States utility patents issued, by year - bar chart.svg|thumb|upright=1.35 |Timeline of patents issued year over year.<ref name="USPTO h_counts page 2023">{{cite web |title=U.S. Patent Activity / Calendar Years 1790 to the Present |url=https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/h_counts.htm |publisher=U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230429190124/https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/h_counts.htm |archive-date=April 29, 2023 |date=2021 |url-status=live }}</ref>]]

There are three known types of Secrecy Orders which can be enforced, referred to as Types I, II and III.<ref name="Saltz Texas A&M February 22, 2022" /> Violation of United States government Secrecy Orders to reveal your ideas may lead to arrest and imprisonment.<ref name="Shulz Wired April 13, 2013" />

The Secrecy Order notices will command inventors that:<ref name="Maunea TIPLJ Summer 2012"|page=4 />

{{Blockquote
|text="the subject matter or any material information relevant to this application, including unpublished details of the invention, shall not be published or disclosed to any person not aware of the invention prior to the date of this order, including any employee of the principals."<ref name="Maunea TIPLJ Summer 2012"|page=4 />
}}

The three known types of Secrecy Orders are:

# Type I Secrecy Orders, referred to as ''"Secrecy Order and Permit for Foreign Filing in Certain Countries"'', typically are used to restrict ideas or materials derived from government funding which may not be themselves secret or classified prior to receiving a Secrecy Order under the Invention Secrecy Act, but may be already under some manner of restrictions from either or both of [[Export Administration Regulations]] and [[International Traffic in Arms Regulations]].<ref name="Saltz Texas A&M February 22, 2022" /> 
# Type II Secrecy Orders, also known as ''"Secrecy Order and Permit for Disclosing Classified Information"'', apply to ideas and inventions that may already be in part composed of classified concepts and technologies, or that can be, and that were submitted for patent review by Americans who already hold some manner of [[United States Department of Defense]] security agreements.<ref name="Saltz Texas A&M February 22, 2022" /> Types I and II, therefore, typically apply to ideas and concepts already within the United States government domain.<ref name="Saltz Texas A&M February 22, 2022" /> 
# Type III Secrecy Orders, called a ''"General Secrecy Order"'', are used as a "catch-all" to restrict any ideas, technologies or inventions that would not be covered by the government affiliation involved with Type I and Type II Secrecy Orders.<ref name="Saltz Texas A&M February 22, 2022" /> Type III Secrecy Orders would be used toward inventions by the general public.<ref name="Saltz Texas A&M February 22, 2022" />

All "security review" files related to "the security review of patent applications, placing of applications under secrecy, modification of secrecy orders, and withdrawing of applications from secrecy" are required to be destroyed ten years after a Secrecy Order is rescinded.<ref name="US Natl Archive DMA 1982"|page=109 />

==Known public examples of restricted technologies==
* '''James Constant''' – California radar-tracking invention; secrecy order 1969–1971; damages claim denied by the courts in 1982.<ref name="Schulz Reveal 2013-04-13" />

* '''James Greer''' – Alabama “anti-stealth” tracking concept; secrecy order 2000–2008.<ref name="Schulz Reveal 2013-04-13" />

* '''Robert Gold''' – Wireless-communications improvement; placed under a secrecy order in 2002.<ref name="Schulz Reveal 2013-04-13" />

* '''Phasorphone inventors''' – NSA imposed a secrecy order in 1978 on the “[[Phasor (sound synthesizer)|Phasor]]<nowiki/>phone”, a voice-obfuscation device; order rescinded after media coverage later that year.<ref name="Gilbert Santa Clara 1982" />

* '''Budimir and Desanka Damnjanovic''' – Anti-[[heat-seeking missile]] counter-measure (“spraying liquid from the back of an airplane”); secrecy order in 2009; five-year appeal failed; filed a First- and Fifth-Amendment lawsuit in 2014; Air Force lifted both orders in a pre-trial settlement.<ref name="Brustein Bloomberg 2016-06-08" /><ref name="Dilawar Slate May 9, 2018" />

==Criticism and concerns==

===Handling and evaluation of ideas and patents===
Critics argue that the Invention Secrecy Act lacks published standards for deciding which inventions may be placed under secrecy orders and provides no clear safeguards for privacy or intellectual-property rights.<ref name="Saltz Texas A&M February 22, 2022" /><ref name="Dilawar Slate May 9, 2018" /> The Federation of American Scientists warns that the system “err[s] on the side of caution and impose[s] secrecy orders on patents that present even the slightest threats”, while at worst “bureaucrats mindlessly impose secrecy orders and then forget about them, because that’s simpler than carefully considering the implications of new technologies becoming public”.<ref name="Dilawar Slate May 9, 2018" />

Historian [[Alex Wellerstein]] has said that “the government’s legal basis for keeping private information secret is very vulnerable”, adding that officials manage secrecy orders to avoid Federal courts “creating precedent around the core constitutional issue”.<ref name="Brustein Bloomberg 2016-06-08" /> Thomas G. Dignan Jr., writing in the ''[[Michigan Law Review]]'', argued that inventors who disclose ideas to the government “effectively lose almost all avenues of appeal” once a secrecy order is imposed.<ref name="Dignan Michigan 1963" />

===Impacts on economics and creation of inventions===
Multiple studies conclude that the Invention Secrecy Act reduces the overall number of new inventions disclosed, because scientific and technical progress typically builds on openly published prior work.<ref name="IJIO Patents study December 23, 2023" /> One analysis found that keeping an invention secret for only a few months makes it about 15 percent less likely to be cited in later research and development, showing that even short-term restrictions can inhibit follow-on innovation.<ref name="Senz Forbes 2020" /> Inventions held under secrecy orders for five years receive, on average, 45 percent fewer citations,<ref name="IJIO Patents study December 23, 2023" /> and they do not regain that lost impact once the orders are lifted.<ref name="IJIO Patents study December 23, 2023" />

Eric B. Chen of the [[University of Texas School of Law]] reported that between 2000 and 2004 only 53 percent of USPTO patents were issued to U.S. residents.<ref name="Chen tiplj Texas 2005" /> Because the Act imposes stricter foreign-filing controls on American applicants, U.S. inventors face greater burdens than non-resident inventors.<ref name="Chen tiplj Texas 2005" /> No comprehensive data exist on the broader economic effects of such “compulsory secrecy”,<ref name="CEPR manifold impacts April 19, 2022" /> although James W. Parrett Jr. of [[William & Mary Law School]] has argued that limited secrecy can be justified for emerging areas such as [[biotechnology]] patents, where disclosure risks remain poorly understood.<ref name="Parrett W&M 2016-06-08" />

==Declassified Category Review Lists==
The [[Federation of American Scientists]] and [[Steven Aftergood]] obtained Category Review lists via [[Freedom of Information Act]] requests that had become declassified, detailing categories of inventions and concepts that the United States government may classify under the Invention Secrecy Act.<ref name="1971 Declassified Category List" /><ref name="2009 Declassified Category List" /> A declassified document from January&nbsp;1971, ''PATENT SECURITY CATEGORY REVIEW LIST'', lists the invention categories that the United States Patent Office referred to the Armed Services Patent Advisory Board for possible classification.<ref name="1971 Declassified Category List" /> A similar document, ''DoD PATENT SECURITY REVIEW LIST, May&nbsp;2009'', gives the categories in 2009.<ref name="2009 Declassified Category List" /> The high-level categories from each year that could be forcibly classified are compared below.

[[File:Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) 2011 Annual Report to the President.pdf|thumb|page=12 |alt=Bar chart from the ISOO 2011 annual report showing yearly counts of derivative classification actions from 1996 to 2011. |Derivative classification activity 1996–2011]]

{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders"
|+ Declassified category review lists, 1971 and 2009
! scope="col"| 1971 declassified category review list<ref name="1971 Declassified Category List" /> !! scope="col"| 2009 declassified category review list<ref name="2009 Declassified Category List" />
|-
! scope="row"| Amplifiers, recorders, sensors and electronic tubes
| Amplifiers, recorders, sensors, & electronic tubes
|-
! scope="row"| Computers
| Computers
|-
! scope="row"| Concealment, communications, countermeasures & counter-countermeasures
| Concealment, communications, countermeasures & counter-countermeasures
|-
! scope="row"| Contracts
| Contracts
|-
! scope="row"| Explosives & inflammables
| Explosives & inflammables
|-
! scope="row"| Explosive actuating methods & means: fuzes, ignition, mine sweeping & torpedoes
| Explosive actuating methods & means: fuses, igniters, mine sweeping & torpedoes
|-
! scope="row"| Explosive device detection methods & means
| Explosive device detection methods & means
|-
! scope="row"| Mapping, charting & geodesy
| Mapping, charting & geodesy
|-
! scope="row"| Materials
| Materials
|-
! scope="row"| Meteorology
| Meteorology
|-
! scope="row"| Military photography
| Military photography
|-
! scope="row"| Miscellaneous
| Miscellaneous
|-
! scope="row"| Missiles, munitions and explosive devices
| Missiles, munitions and explosive devices
|-
! scope="row"| Navigation equipment
| Navigation equipment
|-
! scope="row"| Object locating methods & means
| Object locating methods & means
|-
! scope="row"| Power supply
| Power supply
|-
! scope="row"| Propulsion systems, propellants, & fuels
| Propulsion systems, propellants, & fuels
|-
! scope="row"| Protective measures
| Protective measures
|-
! scope="row"| Radiology
| Radiology
|-
! scope="row"| Unique materials, devices, or performance data and characteristics
| Unique materials, devices, or performance data & characteristics
|-
! scope="row"| Vehicles
| Vehicles
|-
! scope="row"| Weapons, counter-weapons & fire control
| Weapons, counter-weapons & fire control
|}

==See also==
* [[Atomic Energy Act of 1946]]
* [[Atomic Energy Act of 1954]]
* [[Born secret]]
* [[Classified information in the United States]]
* [[Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review]]
* [[Export of cryptography from the United States]]
* [[Free energy suppression conspiracy theory]]
* [[History of United States patent law]]
* [[International Traffic in Arms Regulations]]
* [[United States patent law]]

==References==
{{US government sources}}
{{Reflist|refs=

<ref name="Parrett W&M 2016-06-08">{{Cite web|date=2016-06-08|title=A Proactive Solution to the Inherent Dangers of Biotechnology: Using the Invention Secrecy Act to Restrict Disclosure of Threatening Biotechnology Patents|last=Parrett Jr.|first=James W. |url=https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1208&context=wmelpr|access-date=2024-02-20|url-status=live|website=[[William & Mary Law School]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200319171040/https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1208&context=wmelpr|archive-date=2020-03-19}}</ref>

<ref name="Brustein Bloomberg 2016-06-08">{{Cite web|date=2016-06-08|title=Government secrecy orders on patents keep lid on inventions|last=Brustein|first=Joshua|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-08/congratulations-your-genius-patent-is-now-a-military-secret|access-date=2024-02-20|url-status=live|website=[[Bloomberg News]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160609071532/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-08/congratulations-your-genius-patent-is-now-a-military-secret|archive-date=2016-06-09}}</ref>

<ref name="Schulz Reveal 2013-04-13">{{Cite web|date=2013-04-13|title=Government secrecy orders on patents keep lid on inventions|last=Schulz|first=G.W.|url=https://revealnews.org/article/government-secrecy-orders-on-patents-keep-lid-on-inventions/|access-date=2024-02-20|url-status=live|website=[[The Center for Investigative Reporting]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150918171001/https://revealnews.org/article/government-secrecy-orders-on-patents-keep-lid-on-inventions/|archive-date=2015-09-18}}</ref>

<ref name="Gilbert Santa Clara 1982">{{Cite web|date=1982-01-01|title=Patent Secrecy Orders: The Unconstitutionality of Interference in Civilian Cryptography under Present Procedures|last=Sanders|first=Sylvia|url=https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2035&context=lawreview|access-date=2024-02-20|url-status=live|website=[[Santa Clara University School of Law]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200318080150/https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2035&context=lawreview|archive-date=2020-03-18}}</ref>

<ref name="Sanders Reason 1981">{{Cite web|date=1981-01-01|title=Data Privacy: What Washington Doesn't Want You to Know|last=Sanders|first=Sylvia|url=https://reason.com/1981/01/01/data-privacy-what-washington-d/|access-date=2024-02-19|url-status=live|website=[[Reason (magazine)|Reason]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201020173045/https://reason.com/1981/01/01/data-privacy-what-washington-d/|archive-date=2020-10-20}}</ref>

<ref name="Shulz Wired April 13, 2013">{{Cite magazine|date=2013-04-13|title=Government Secrecy Orders on Patents Have Stifled More Than 5,000 Inventions|last=Shulz|first=G.W.|url=https://www.wired.com/2013/04/gov-secrecy-orders-on-patents/|access-date=2024-01-30|url-status=live|magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140421092328/https://www.wired.com/2013/04/gov-secrecy-orders-on-patents/|archive-date=2014-04-21}}</ref>

<ref name="Dilawar Slate May 9, 2018">{{Cite web|date=2018-05-09|title=The U.S. Government's Secret Inventions: Secrecy orders allow U.S. defense agencies to control patents, including those that are privately developed.|last=Dilawar|first=Arvind|url=https://slate.com/technology/2018/05/the-thousands-of-secret-patents-that-the-u-s-government-refuses-to-make-public.html|access-date=2024-01-31|url-status=live|website=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180509182726/https://slate.com/technology/2018/05/the-thousands-of-secret-patents-that-the-u-s-government-refuses-to-make-public.html|archive-date=2018-05-09}}</ref>

<ref name="Gross HBS March 13, 2019 full paper">{{Cite web|date=2019-03-13|title=The Consequences of Invention Secrecy: Evidence from the USPTO Patent Secrecy Program in World War II|last=Gross|first=Daniel P.|url=https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/19-090_5225cb00-a67f-4026-98a4-2bc83c6e659f.pdf|access-date=2024-01-31|website=HBS Working Knowledge|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230628151658/https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/19-090_5225cb00-a67f-4026-98a4-2bc83c6e659f.pdf|archive-date=2023-06-28}}</ref>

<ref name="Gross NBER July 1, 2019">{{Cite web|date=2019-07-01|title=WWII Policy Kept Patents Secret, Slowed Innovation|last=Gross|first=Daniel P.|url=https://www.nber.org/digest/jul19/wwii-policy-kept-patents-secret-slowed-innovation|access-date=2024-01-30|url-status=live|website=[[National Bureau of Economic Research]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230606103334/https://www.nber.org/digest/jul19/wwii-policy-kept-patents-secret-slowed-innovation|archive-date=2023-06-06}}</ref>

<ref name="USPTO 120 Secrecy Orders January 31, 2024">{{Cite web|date=2023-02-16|title=United States Patent and Trademark Office, 120 Secrecy Orders [R-07.2022]|url=https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s120.html|access-date=2024-01-31|url-status=live|website=[[United States Patent and Trademark Office]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240130180044/https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s120.html|archive-date=2024-01-30}}</ref>

<ref name="CEPR manifold impacts April 19, 2022">{{Cite web|date=2022-04-19|title=The hidden costs of securing innovation: The manifold impacts of compulsory invention secrecy|url=https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/hidden-costs-securing-innovation-manifold-impacts-compulsory-invention-secrecy|access-date=2024-01-31|url-status=live|website=[[Centre for Economic Policy Research]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220926035643/https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/hidden-costs-securing-innovation-manifold-impacts-compulsory-invention-secrecy|archive-date=2022-09-26}}</ref>

<ref name="IJIO Patents study December 23, 2023">{{Cite journal|date=2024|title=Do patents enable disclosure? Evidence from the invention secrecy act|last1=de Rassenfosse|first1=Gaétan P.|last2=Pellegrino|first2=Gabriele|last3=Raiteri|first3=Emilio|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167718723001133|access-date=2024-01-31|url-status=live|journal=
International Journal of Industrial Organization|volume=92 |doi=10.1016/j.ijindorg.2023.103044 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240131230938/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167718723001133|archive-date=2024-01-31}}</ref>

<ref name="Saltz Texas A&M February 22, 2022">{{Cite web|date=2022-02-16|title=Patently Absurd: The Invention Secrecy Order System|last=Saltz|first=Gregory|url=https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1189&context=journal-of-property-law|access-date=2024-01-31|url-status=live|website=[[Texas A&M University School of Law]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220519155336/https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1189&context=journal-of-property-law|archive-date=2022-05-19}}</ref>

<ref name="Rand IAS September 19, 2019">{{Cite journal|date=2019-09-19|title=The Role of Intellectual Property in U.S. Homeland Security|last1=McGovern|first1=Geoffrey|last2=McCollester|first2=Maria|last3=Ligor|first3=Douglas C.|last4=Tao Li|first4=Sheng|last5=Yeung|first5=Douglas|last6=Kupe|first6=Laura|url=https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3039.html|access-date=2024-02-05|url-status=live|website=[[RAND Corporation]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190919123346/https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR3000/RR3039/RAND_RR3039.pdf|archive-date=2019-09-19}}</ref>

<ref name="Maunea TIPLJ Summer 2012">{{Cite web|date=2012-06-01|title=Patent Secrecy Orders: Fairness Issues In Application of Invention Secrecy Act|last=Maunea|first=Jaime|url=https://tiplj.org/wp-content/uploads/Volumes/v20/v20p471.pdf|access-date=2024-02-06|url-status=live|website=Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160819113349/https://tiplj.org/wp-content/uploads/Volumes/v20/v20p471.pdf|archive-date=2016-08-19}}</ref>

<ref name="Locke Indiana 2019">{{Cite journal|date=2019-04-15|title=The Invention Secrecy Act: The USPTO as a Gatekeeper of National Security|last=Locke|first=Scott|url=https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ipt/vol8/iss1/4/|access-date=2024-02-07|url-status=live|journal=[[Indiana University Maurer School of Law]]|volume=8 |issue=1 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190802112256/https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1049&context=ipt|archive-date=2019-08-02}}</ref>

<ref name="US Natl Archive DMA 1982">{{Cite web|date=1982-04-21|title=DMA RECORDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM|url=https://www.archives.gov/files/records-mgmt/rcs/schedules/departments/department-of-defense/rg-0456/nc1-456-82-01_sf115.pdf|access-date=2024-02-08|url-status=live|website=[[National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency]], formerly Defense Mapping Agency, hosted at the [[National Archives and Records Administration]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170720121150/https://www.archives.gov/files/records-mgmt/rcs/schedules/departments/department-of-defense/rg-0456/nc1-456-82-01_sf115.pdf|archive-date=2017-07-20}}</ref>

<ref name="Senz Forbes 2020">{{Cite web|date=2020-01-13|title=Do National Security Secrets Hold Back National Innovation?|last=Senz|first=Kristen|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2020/01/13/do-national-security-secrets-hold-back-national-innovation/?sh=6ea5ebde5dd4|access-date=2024-02-19|url-status=live|website=[[Forbes]], [[Harvard Business School]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200113164521/https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2020/01/13/do-national-security-secrets-hold-back-national-innovation/|archive-date=2020-01-13}}</ref>

<ref name="Dignan Michigan 1963">{{Cite web|date=1963-01-01|title=Patents-Procedure-Applicability of Invention Secrecy Act Where Government Use of Invention is Authorized|last=Dignan Jr.|first=Thomas G.|url=https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6108&context=mlr|access-date=2024-02-20|url-status=live|website=[[Michigan Law Review]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201025142212/https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6108&context=mlr|archive-date=2020-10-25}}</ref>

<ref name="Chen tiplj Texas 2005">{{Cite web|date=2005-03-01|title=Technology Outpacing The Law: The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 And The Outsourcing of U.S. Patent Application Drafting|last=Chen|first=Eric, B. |url=https://tiplj.org/wp-content/uploads/Volumes/v13/v13p351.pdf|access-date=2024-08-27|url-status=live|publisher=Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal|website=[[University of Texas School of Law]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240130175932/https://tiplj.org/wp-content/uploads/Volumes/v13/v13p351.pdf|archive-date=2024-01-30}}</ref>

<ref name="1971 Declassified Category List">{{cite web|url=https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/pscrl.pdf|title=Armed Services Patent Advisory Board - Patent Security Category Review List (1971)|date=January 1971|url-status=live|website=[[Federation of American Scientists]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210904033715/https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/invention/pscrl.pdf|archive-date=2021-09-04|access-date=2024-01-30}}</ref>

<ref name="2009 Declassified Category List">{{cite web|url=https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/invention/pscrl-2009-red.pdf|title=DoD PATENT SECURITY REVIEW LIST, May 2009|date=January 1971|url-status=live|website=[[Federation of American Scientists]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210827064147/https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/invention/pscrl-2009-red.pdf|archive-date=2021-08-27|access-date=2024-08-30}}</ref>

<ref name="Lee Berkeley BTLJ ISA Sep 1997">{{Cite journal|date=1997|title=Protecting the private inventor under the peacetime provisions of the Invention Secrecy Act|last1=Lee|first1=Sabing H.|url=https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1115962|url-status=live|journal=
[[Berkeley Technology Law Journal]]|volume=12|issue=2|pages=345–411 |doi=10.15779/Z38RQ3T|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150910135837/https://www.btlj.org/data/articles2015/vol12/12_2/12-berkeley-tech-l-j-0345-0412.pdf|archive-date=2015-09-10}}</ref>

}}

==External links==
* {{USPL|77|239|AN ACT To amend the Act relating to preventing the publication of inventions in the national interest, and for other purposes}}
* [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode35/usc_sup_01_35_10_II_20_17.html Title 35, Chapter 17 of the US Code--full text of the Act] from the [[Legal Information Institute]]
* [http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/index.html Invention Secrecy], from the Federation of American Scientists
* Foerstel, Herbert N., ''Secret Science: Federal Control of American Science and Technology''. Westport: Praeger, 1993, pp.&nbsp;165–172.
* "Invention Secrecy Still Going Strong," ''Secrecy & Government Bulletin'', May 1993, p.&nbsp;2.
* https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2010/10/invention_secrecy_2010/
* [dead link of freethetech.org, [https://web.archive.org/web/20200930141559/http://freethetech.org/ 2020 archive.org link]]

[[Category:82nd United States Congress]]
[[Category:1951 in American law]]
[[Category:Classified information in the United States]]
[[Category:Export and import control]]
[[Category:Inventions]]
[[Category:Law of the United States]]
[[Category:Military economics]]
[[Category:Military–industrial complex]]
[[Category:Military technology]]
[[Category:National security]]
[[Category:Privacy of telecommunications]]
[[Category:Public sphere]]
[[Category:United States federal law]]
[[Category:United States federal patent legislation]]
[[Category:United States government secrecy]]