## Facts

- Campbell Plastics entered a cost-plus-fixed-fee Army R&D contract under the Small Business Act § 8(a) program to develop aircrew protective mask components.
- The contract incorporated FAR 52.227-11 (Patent Rights—Retention by the Contractor) and FAR 252.227-7039 (Patents—Reporting of Subject Inventions), requiring timely disclosure of each “subject invention.”
- The contract required interim and final invention reports to be submitted on DD Form 882.
- Campbell submitted multiple DD Form 882 reports during performance, each stating there were “no inventions.”
- During the contract, Campbell developed a method for fabricating a sonic-welded gas mask that qualified as a subject invention.
- Campbell provided technical information about sonic welding in progress reports, drawings, and related submissions to the Army, but did not report the invention on DD Form 882.
- Campbell later filed a patent application and obtained a patent, then notified the Army.
- An Administrative Contracting Officer determined Campbell had forfeited title by failing to comply with the contract’s formal invention-disclosure requirements and demanded title for the government.
- The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals upheld the title demand, and Campbell appealed to the Federal Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether technical submissions and progress reports to the government satisfied the contract’s subject-invention disclosure requirements despite the contractor’s DD Form 882 reports stating “no inventions.”
2. Whether, upon the contractor’s failure to disclose as required, the government could obtain title under FAR 52.227-11 without proving prejudice, reliance, or similar harm.
3. Whether the contracting officer abused discretion by electing to obtain title despite the government’s access to technical information about the invention.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the ASBCA’s decision.
- The court held Campbell failed to comply with the contract’s invention-disclosure provisions because it did not disclose the subject invention via DD Form 882 as required.
- The court held the government was entitled under FAR 52.227-11 to obtain title based on the failure to make the required disclosure.
- The court rejected any requirement that the government prove prejudice or reliance to enforce the contractual title-acquisition remedy.
- The court held the contracting officer did not abuse discretion in demanding title.

## Legal Principles

- When a government contract specifies a particular written mechanism for disclosing subject inventions (here, DD Form 882), compliance with that mechanism is required.
- Dispersed technical communications (e.g., progress reports, drawings, or other data submissions) are not a substitute for the contractually designated subject-invention disclosure report.
- Under FAR 52.227-11, a contractor’s failure to timely disclose a subject invention as required can trigger the government’s contractual option to obtain title.
- Courts will enforce the government’s contractual right to obtain title as written and will not add a prejudice or reliance requirement absent such a condition in the contract.
- An agency does not act arbitrarily or capriciously by electing to obtain title when the contractor repeatedly filed “no inventions” reports contrary to the contract’s reporting obligations.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that Campbell’s failure to disclose its subject invention on the contractually required DD Form 882—despite providing technical information elsewhere—constituted noncompliance that permitted the government to obtain title under the FAR patent rights clause, without any separate showing of prejudice, and that the contracting officer’s title demand was a permissible exercise of discretion.


Campbell Plastics Eng’g & Mfg., Inc. v. Brownlee, 389 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2004)