basis in eminent domain); Tektronix, Inc. v. United States, 213 Ct.Cl. 257, 552 F.2d 343, 346 (1977) ("It is settled that recovery of reasonable compensation under § 1498 is premised on a theory of an eminent domain taking under the Fifth Amendment.") (citing Calhoun v. United States, 197 Ct.Cl. 41, 51, 453 F.2d 1385 (1972)) (stating the government “ipso facto takes by eminent domain a compulsory compensatory license in the patent”); Pitcairn v. United States, 212 Ct.Cl. 168, 547 F.2d 1106, 1114 (1976) ("The use or manufacture by or for the Government of a device or machine embodying any invention by a United States patent, is a taking of property by the Government under its power of eminent domain.”); Irving Air Chute Co. v. United States, 117 Ct.Cl. 799, 93 F.Supp. 633, 635 (1950) (<HOLDING>). 14 . See e.g., Leesona Corp., 599 F.2d at 964
recognizing that  1498 is in effect an eminent domain statute recognizing that where the statutory language is not ambiguous  the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute must be given effect holding that the statute qualifies as an exemption 3 statute holding that the statute is mandatory holding the precursor statute to  1498 to be nonjurisdictional as to private defendants merely establishing an affirmative defense