taking. Regulatory takings are governed by the legal standards outlined in Monsanto. In Monsanto, the Supreme Court held that the appropriation of an intellectual property interest by a government action requires just compensation for its use when a federal law deprives the intellectual property owner of virtually all investment-backed expectations in the intellectual property. The Supreme Court’s decision in Monsanto is significant for two reasons. First, the Court makes cleai’ that an intellectual property interest is deserving of protection under the Fifth Amendment tantamount to real property. Second, the Supreme Court found a remedy appropriate under the Tucker Act even though the disclosure of another’s trade secret is a tort. Cf. Schillinger, 155 U.S. at 169, 15 S.Ct. 85 (<HOLDING>). Although the Supreme Court held in Monsanto
holding that a patent infringement action is essentially a tort holding that a consent judgment is essentially a contract holding that essentially equivalent is unconstitutionally vague holding that a suit for infringement of federal copyright and unfair competition which the court acknowledged was essentially a tort action was outside the scope of subsection b2 even though it related to a contract holding without comment that venue in a trademark infringement case is proper where infringement occurred