Dynetics, Inc. and Subsidiaries v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• ruling that the taxpayer did not retain substantial rights in the results of the research when it needed Government “authorization” to use the results
• holding that the research was funded; although the contract explicitly provided the “right to inspect and test all work called for by the contract,” it “did not include rejection language; nor did it limit payment to work the government accepted”
• engineering firm lacked substantial rights under “work for hire” contract that transferred “all rights, title, and interest” to the results of its work
• engineering firm lacked substantial rights under contract that required contractor to seek approval prior to using or releasing any “materials” or information acquired under the contract
• determining the taxpayer did not retain substantial rights in its research and failed to address “the obvious question of how it could have substantial rights in the results of the research, if it needed the government’s ‘authorization’ to use those results”
• engineering firm’s QRTC claim failed the substantial rights prong where engineering firm failed to address “the obvious question of how it could have substantial rights in the results of the research, if it needed the government’s ‘authorization’ to use those results.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).