CHAPTER 29 —REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT, AND OTHER ACTIONS
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2011—
1999—
1992—
1988—
1982—
1 So in original. Does not conform to section catchline.
§281. Remedy for infringement of patent
A patentee shall have remedy by civil action for infringement of his patent.
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950,
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §§67 and 70, part (R.S. 4919; R.S. 4921, amended (1) Mar. 3, 1897, ch. 391, §6,
The corresponding two sections of existing law are divided among sections 281, 283, 284, 285, 286 and 289 with some changes in language. Section 281 serves as an introduction or preamble to the following sections, the modern term civil action is used, there would be, of course, a right to a jury trial when no injunction is sought.
§282. Presumption of validity; defenses
(a)
(b)
(1) Noninfringement, absence of liability for infringement or unenforceability.
(2) Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit on any ground specified in part II as a condition for patentability.
(3) Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit for failure to comply with—
(A) any requirement of section 112, except that the failure to disclose the best mode shall not be a basis on which any claim of a patent may be canceled or held invalid or otherwise unenforceable; or
(B) any requirement of section 251.
(4) Any other fact or act made a defense by this title.
(c)
(1) by the applicant for the extension, or
(2) by the Director,
to comply with the requirements of such section shall be a defense in any action involving the infringement of a patent during the period of the extension of its term and shall be pleaded. A due diligence determination under section 156(d)(2) is not subject to review in such an action.
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950,
Historical and Revision Notes
Derived from Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §69 (R.S. 4920, amended (1) Mar. 3, 1897, ch. 391, §2,
The first paragraph declares the existing presumption of validity of patents.
The five defenses named in R.S. 4920 are omitted and replaced by a broader paragraph specifying defenses in general terms.
The third paragraph, relating to notice of prior patents, publications and uses, is based on part of the last paragraph of R.S. 4920 which was superseded by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but which is reinstated with modifications.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2011—
"(A) any requirement of section 112, except that the failure to disclose the best mode shall not be a basis on which any claim of a patent may be canceled or held invalid or otherwise unenforceable; or
"(B) any requirement of section 251."
for "(3) Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit for failure to comply with any requirement of
2002—Third par.
1999—Third par.
1995—First par.
1984—
1982—Third par.
1975—First par.
1965—
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 2011 Amendment
Amendment by section 15(a) of
Amendment by section 20(g), (j) of
Effective Date of 1999 Amendment
Amendment by section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4402(b)(1)] of
Amendment by section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4732(a)(10)(A)] of
Effective Date of 1982 Amendment
Amendment by
Effective Date of 1975 Amendment
Amendment by
Effective Date of 1965 Amendment
Amendment by
§283. Injunction
The several courts having jurisdiction of cases under this title may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable.
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950,
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §70, part (R.S. 4921, amended (1) Mar. 3, 1897, ch. 391, §6,
This section is the same as the provision which opens R.S. 4921 with minor changes in language.
§284. Damages
Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court.
When the damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them. In either event the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed. Increased damages under this paragraph shall not apply to provisional rights under section 154(d).
The court may receive expert testimony as an aid to the determination of damages or of what royalty would be reasonable under the circumstances.
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950,
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §§67 and 70, part (R.S. 4919; R.S. 4921, amended (1) Mar. 3, 1897, ch. 391, §6,
This section consolidates the provisions relating to damages in R.S. 4919 and 4921, with some changes in language.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2011—Second par.
1999—Second par.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 2011 Amendment
Amendment by
Effective Date of 1999 Amendment
Amendment by
§285. Attorney fees
The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950,
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §70, part (R.S. 4921, amended (1) Mar. 3, 1897, ch. 391, §6,
This section is substantially the same as the corresponding provision in R.S. 4921; "in exceptional cases" has been added as expressing the intention of the present statute as shown by its legislative history and as interpreted by the courts.
§286. Time limitation on damages
Except as otherwise provided by law, no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action.
In the case of claims against the United States Government for use of a patented invention, the period before bringing suit, up to six years, between the date of receipt of a written claim for compensation by the department or agency of the Government having authority to settle such claim, and the date of mailing by the Government of a notice to the claimant that his claim has been denied shall not be counted as part of the period referred to in the preceding paragraph.
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950,
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §70, part (R.S. 4921, amended (1) Mar. 3, 1897, ch. 391, §6,
The first paragraph is the same as the provision in R.S. 4921 with minor changes in language, with the added provision relating to the date for counterclaims for infringement.
The second paragraph is new and relates to extending the period of limitations with respect to suits in the Court of Claims in certain instances when administrative consideration is pending.
§287. Limitation on damages and other remedies; marking and notice
(a) Patentees, and persons making, offering for sale, or selling within the United States any patented article for or under them, or importing any patented article into the United States, may give notice to the public that the same is patented, either by fixing thereon the word "patent" or the abbreviation "pat.", together with the number of the patent, or by fixing thereon the word "patent" or the abbreviation "pat." together with an address of a posting on the Internet, accessible to the public without charge for accessing the address, that associates the patented article with the number of the patent, or when, from the character of the article, this can not be done, by fixing to it, or to the package wherein one or more of them is contained, a label containing a like notice. In the event of failure so to mark, no damages shall be recovered by the patentee in any action for infringement, except on proof that the infringer was notified of the infringement and continued to infringe thereafter, in which event damages may be recovered only for infringement occurring after such notice. Filing of an action for infringement shall constitute such notice.
(b)(1) An infringer under section 271(g) shall be subject to all the provisions of this title relating to damages and injunctions except to the extent those remedies are modified by this subsection or section 9006 of the Process Patent Amendments Act of 1988. The modifications of remedies provided in this subsection shall not be available to any person who—
(A) practiced the patented process;
(B) owns or controls, or is owned or controlled by, the person who practiced the patented process; or
(C) had knowledge before the infringement that a patented process was used to make the product the importation, use, offer for sale, or sale of which constitutes the infringement.
(2) No remedies for infringement under section 271(g) shall be available with respect to any product in the possession of, or in transit to, the person subject to liability under such section before that person had notice of infringement with respect to that product. The person subject to liability shall bear the burden of proving any such possession or transit.
(3)(A) In making a determination with respect to the remedy in an action brought for infringement under section 271(g), the court shall consider—
(i) the good faith demonstrated by the defendant with respect to a request for disclosure,
(ii) the good faith demonstrated by the plaintiff with respect to a request for disclosure, and
(iii) the need to restore the exclusive rights secured by the patent.
(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the following are evidence of good faith:
(i) a request for disclosure made by the defendant;
(ii) a response within a reasonable time by the person receiving the request for disclosure; and
(iii) the submission of the response by the defendant to the manufacturer, or if the manufacturer is not known, to the supplier, of the product to be purchased by the defendant, together with a request for a written statement that the process claimed in any patent disclosed in the response is not used to produce such product.
The failure to perform any acts described in the preceding sentence is evidence of absence of good faith unless there are mitigating circumstances. Mitigating circumstances include the case in which, due to the nature of the product, the number of sources for the product, or like commercial circumstances, a request for disclosure is not necessary or practicable to avoid infringement.
(4)(A) For purposes of this subsection, a "request for disclosure" means a written request made to a person then engaged in the manufacture of a product to identify all process patents owned by or licensed to that person, as of the time of the request, that the person then reasonably believes could be asserted to be infringed under section 271(g) if that product were imported into, or sold, offered for sale, or used in, the United States by an unauthorized person. A request for disclosure is further limited to a request—
(i) which is made by a person regularly engaged in the United States in the sale of the same type of products as those manufactured by the person to whom the request is directed, or which includes facts showing that the person making the request plans to engage in the sale of such products in the United States;
(ii) which is made by such person before the person's first importation, use, offer for sale, or sale of units of the product produced by an infringing process and before the person had notice of infringement with respect to the product; and
(iii) which includes a representation by the person making the request that such person will promptly submit the patents identified pursuant to the request to the manufacturer, or if the manufacturer is not known, to the supplier, of the product to be purchased by the person making the request, and will request from that manufacturer or supplier a written statement that none of the processes claimed in those patents is used in the manufacture of the product.
(B) In the case of a request for disclosure received by a person to whom a patent is licensed, that person shall either identify the patent or promptly notify the licensor of the request for disclosure.
(C) A person who has marked, in the manner prescribed by subsection (a), the number of the process patent on all products made by the patented process which have been offered for sale or sold by that person in the United States, or imported by the person into the United States, before a request for disclosure is received is not required to respond to the request for disclosure. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term "all products" does not include products made before the effective date of the Process Patent Amendments Act of 1988.
(5)(A) For purposes of this subsection, notice of infringement means actual knowledge, or receipt by a person of a written notification, or a combination thereof, of information sufficient to persuade a reasonable person that it is likely that a product was made by a process patented in the United States.
(B) A written notification from the patent holder charging a person with infringement shall specify the patented process alleged to have been used and the reasons for a good faith belief that such process was used. The patent holder shall include in the notification such information as is reasonably necessary to explain fairly the patent holder's belief, except that the patent holder is not required to disclose any trade secret information.
(C) A person who receives a written notification described in subparagraph (B) or a written response to a request for disclosure described in paragraph (4) shall be deemed to have notice of infringement with respect to any patent referred to in such written notification or response unless that person, absent mitigating circumstances—
(i) promptly transmits the written notification or response to the manufacturer or, if the manufacturer is not known, to the supplier, of the product purchased or to be purchased by that person; and
(ii) receives a written statement from the manufacturer or supplier which on its face sets forth a well grounded factual basis for a belief that the identified patents are not infringed.
(D) For purposes of this subsection, a person who obtains a product made by a process patented in the United States in a quantity which is abnormally large in relation to the volume of business of such person or an efficient inventory level shall be rebuttably presumed to have actual knowledge that the product was made by such patented process.
(6) A person who receives a response to a request for disclosure under this subsection shall pay to the person to whom the request was made a reasonable fee to cover actual costs incurred in complying with the request, which may not exceed the cost of a commercially available automated patent search of the matter involved, but in no case more than $500.
(c)(1) With respect to a medical practitioner's performance of a medical activity that constitutes an infringement under section 271(a) or (b), the provisions of sections 281, 283, 284, and 285 shall not apply against the medical practitioner or against a related health care entity with respect to such medical activity.
(2) For the purposes of this subsection:
(A) the term "medical activity" means the performance of a medical or surgical procedure on a body, but shall not include (i) the use of a patented machine, manufacture, or composition of matter in violation of such patent, (ii) the practice of a patented use of a composition of matter in violation of such patent, or (iii) the practice of a process in violation of a biotechnology patent.
(B) the term "medical practitioner" means any natural person who is licensed by a State to provide the medical activity described in subsection (c)(1) or who is acting under the direction of such person in the performance of the medical activity.
(C) the term "related health care entity" shall mean an entity with which a medical practitioner has a professional affiliation under which the medical practitioner performs the medical activity, including but not limited to a nursing home, hospital, university, medical school, health maintenance organization, group medical practice, or a medical clinic.
(D) the term "professional affiliation" shall mean staff privileges, medical staff membership, employment or contractual relationship, partnership or ownership interest, academic appointment, or other affiliation under which a medical practitioner provides the medical activity on behalf of, or in association with, the health care entity.
(E) the term "body" shall mean a human body, organ or cadaver, or a nonhuman animal used in medical research or instruction directly relating to the treatment of humans.
(F) the term "patented use of a composition of matter" does not include a claim for a method of performing a medical or surgical procedure on a body that recites the use of a composition of matter where the use of that composition of matter does not directly contribute to achievement of the objective of the claimed method.
(G) the term "State" shall mean any State or territory of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(3) This subsection does not apply to the activities of any person, or employee or agent of such person (regardless of whether such person is a tax exempt organization under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code), who is engaged in the commercial development, manufacture, sale, importation, or distribution of a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter or the provision of pharmacy or clinical laboratory services (other than clinical laboratory services provided in a physician's office), where such activities are:
(A) directly related to the commercial development, manufacture, sale, importation, or distribution of a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter or the provision of pharmacy or clinical laboratory services (other than clinical laboratory services provided in a physician's office), and
(B) regulated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Public Health Service Act, or the Clinical Laboratories Improvement Act.
(4) This subsection shall not apply to any patent issued based on an application which has an effective filing date before September 30, 1996.
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950,
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §49 (R.S. 4900, amended Feb. 7, 1927, ch. 67,
Language is changed. The proviso in the corresponding section of existing statute is omitted as being temporary in character and now obsolete.
Editorial Notes
References in Text
Section 9006 of the Process Patent Amendments Act of 1988, referred to in subsec. (b)(1), is section 9006 of title IX of
The effective date of the Process Patent Amendments Act of 1988, referred to in subsec. (b)(4)(C), is the effective date of title IX of
Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, referred to in subsec. (c)(3), is classified to
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, referred to in subsec. (c)(3)(B), is act June 25, 1938, ch. 675,
The Public Health Service Act, referred to in subsec. (c)(3)(B), is act July 1, 1944, ch. 373,
The Clinical Laboratories Improvement Act, referred to in subsec. (c)(3)(B), probably means the Clinical Laboratories Improvement Act of 1967, section 5 of
Amendments
2011—Subsec. (a).
Subsec. (b)(2).
Subsec. (c)(1).
Subsec. (c)(2)(G).
Subsec. (c)(4).
1999—Subsec. (c)(4).
1996—Subsec. (c).
1994—Subsec. (a).
Subsec. (b)(1)(C).
Subsec. (b)(4)(A).
Subsec. (b)(4)(A)(ii).
Subsec. (b)(4)(C).
1988—
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 2011 Amendment
Amendment by section 3(g)(2) of
Amendment by section 20(i)(4), (j) of
Effective Date of 1994 Amendment
Amendment by
Effective Date of 1988 Amendment
Amendment by
§288. Action for infringement of a patent containing an invalid claim
Whenever a claim of a patent is invalid, an action may be maintained for the infringement of a claim of the patent which may be valid. The patentee shall recover no costs unless a disclaimer of the invalid claim has been entered at the Patent and Trademark Office before the commencement of the suit.
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950,
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §71 (R.S. 4922).
The necessity for a disclaimer to recover on valid claims is eliminated. See section 253.
Language is changed.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2011—
1975—
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 2011 Amendment
Amendment by
Effective Date of 1975 Amendment
Amendment by
§289. Additional remedy for infringement of design patent
Whoever during the term of a patent for a design, without license of the owner, (1) applies the patented design, or any colorable imitation thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or (2) sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture to which such design or colorable imitation has been applied shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit, but not less than $250, recoverable in any United States district court having jurisdiction of the parties.
Nothing in this section shall prevent, lessen, or impeach any other remedy which an owner of an infringed patent has under the provisions of this title, but he shall not twice recover the profit made from the infringement.
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950,
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §§74, 75 (Feb. 4, 1887, ch. 105, §§1, 2,
Language is changed.
§290. Notice of patent suits
The clerks of the courts of the United States, within one month after the filing of an action under this title shall give notice thereof in writing to the Director, setting forth so far as known the names and addresses of the parties, name of the inventor, and the designating number of the patent upon which the action has been brought. If any other patent is subsequently included in the action he shall give like notice thereof. Within one month after the decision is rendered or a judgment issued the clerk of the court shall give notice thereof to the Director. The Director shall, on receipt of such notices, enter the same in the file of such patent.
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950,
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §70, part (R.S. 4921, amended (1) Mar. 3, 1897, ch. 391, §6,
This is the last sentence of R.S. 4921, third paragraph, with minor changes in language.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2002—
1999—
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 1999 Amendment
Amendment by
§291. Derived patents
(a)
(b)
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950,
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §66 (R.S. 4918, amended Mar. 2, 1927, ch. 273, §12,
Language is changed.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2011—
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 2011 Amendment
Amendment by section 3(h)(1) of
Amendment by section 20(j) of
Savings Provisions
Provisions of
§292. False marking
(a) Whoever, without the consent of the patentee, marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with anything made, used, offered for sale, or sold by such person within the United States, or imported by the person into the United States, the name or any imitation of the name of the patentee, the patent number, or the words "patent," "patentee," or the like, with the intent of counterfeiting or imitating the mark of the patentee, or of deceiving the public and inducing them to believe that the thing was made, offered for sale, sold, or imported into the United States by or with the consent of the patentee; or
Whoever marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with any unpatented article, the word "patent" or any word or number importing that the same is patented, for the purpose of deceiving the public; or
Whoever marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with any article, the words "patent applied for," "patent pending," or any word importing that an application for patent has been made, when no application for patent has been made, or if made, is not pending, for the purpose of deceiving the public—
Shall be fined not more than $500 for every such offense. Only the United States may sue for the penalty authorized by this subsection.
(b) A person who has suffered a competitive injury as a result of a violation of this section may file a civil action in a district court of the United States for recovery of damages adequate to compensate for the injury.
(c) The marking of a product, in a manner described in subsection (a), with matter relating to a patent that covered that product but has expired is not a violation of this section.
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950,
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §50 (R.S. 4901).
This is a criminal provision. The first two paragraphs of the corresponding section of existing statute are consolidated, a new paragraph relating to false marking of "patent applied for" is added, and false advertising is included in all the offenses. The minimum fine which has been interpreted by the courts as a maximum, is replaced by a higher maximum. The informer action is included as additional to an ordinary criminal action.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2011—Subsec. (a).
Subsec. (b).
Subsec. (c).
1994—Subsec. (a).
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 2011 Amendment
Effective Date of 1994 Amendment
Amendment by
§293. Nonresident patentee; service and notice
Every patentee not residing in the United States may file in the Patent and Trademark Office a written designation stating the name and address of a person residing within the United States on whom may be served process or notice of proceedings affecting the patent or rights thereunder. If the person designated cannot be found at the address given in the last designation, or if no person has been designated, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia shall have jurisdiction and summons shall be served by publication or otherwise as the court directs. The court shall have the same jurisdiction to take any action respecting the patent or rights thereunder that it would have if the patentee were personally within the jurisdiction of the court.
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950,
Historical and Revision Notes
This section provides for service on non-resident patentees.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2011—
1975—
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 2011 Amendment
Amendment by
Effective Date of 1975 Amendment
Amendment by
§294. Voluntary arbitration
(a) A contract involving a patent or any right under a patent may contain a provision requiring arbitration of any dispute relating to patent validity or infringement arising under the contract. In the absence of such a provision, the parties to an existing patent validity or infringement dispute may agree in writing to settle such dispute by arbitration. Any such provision or agreement shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except for any grounds that exist at law or in equity for revocation of a contract.
(b) Arbitration of such disputes, awards by arbitrators and confirmation of awards shall be governed by title 9, to the extent such title is not inconsistent with this section. In any such arbitration proceeding, the defenses provided for under section 282 shall be considered by the arbitrator if raised by any party to the proceeding.
(c) An award by an arbitrator shall be final and binding between the parties to the arbitration but shall have no force or effect on any other person. The parties to an arbitration may agree that in the event a patent which is the subject matter of an award is subsequently determined to be invalid or unenforceable in a judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction from which no appeal can or has been taken, such award may be modified by any court of competent jurisdiction upon application by any party to the arbitration. Any such modification shall govern the rights and obligations between such parties from the date of such modification.
(d) When an award is made by an arbitrator, the patentee, his assignee or licensee shall give notice thereof in writing to the Director. There shall be a separate notice prepared for each patent involved in such proceeding. Such notice shall set forth the names and addresses of the parties, the name of the inventor, and the name of the patent owner, shall designate the number of the patent, and shall contain a copy of the award. If an award is modified by a court, the party requesting such modification shall give notice of such modification to the Director. The Director shall, upon receipt of either notice, enter the same in the record of the prosecution of such patent. If the required notice is not filed with the Director, any party to the proceeding may provide such notice to the Director.
(e) The award shall be unenforceable until the notice required by subsection (d) is received by the Director.
(Added
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2011—Subsec. (b).
2002—Subsec. (b).
Subsec. (c).
Subsecs. (d), (e).
1999—Subsecs. (d), (e).
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 2011 Amendment
Amendment by
Effective Date of 1999 Amendment
Amendment by
Effective Date
§295. Presumption: Product made by patented process
In actions alleging infringement of a process patent based on the importation, sale, offer for sale, or use of a product which is made from a process patented in the United States, if the court finds—
(1) that a substantial likelihood exists that the product was made by the patented process, and
(2) that the plaintiff has made a reasonable effort to determine the process actually used in the production of the product and was unable to so determine,
the product shall be presumed to have been so made, and the burden of establishing that the product was not made by the process shall be on the party asserting that it was not so made.
(Added
Editorial Notes
Amendments
1994—
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 1994 Amendment
Amendment by
Effective Date
Section effective 6 months after Aug. 23, 1988, and, subject to enumerated exceptions, applicable only with respect to products made or imported after such effective date, see section 9006 of
§296. Liability of States, instrumentalities of States, and State officials for infringement of patents
(a)
(b)
(Added
Editorial Notes
Constitutionality
For information regarding the constitutionality of this section, as added by section 2(a)(2) of
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date
Section effective with respect to violations that occur on or after Oct. 28, 1992, see section 4 of
§297. Improper and deceptive invention promotion
(a)
(1) the total number of inventions evaluated by the invention promoter for commercial potential in the past 5 years, as well as the number of those inventions that received positive evaluations, and the number of those inventions that received negative evaluations;
(2) the total number of customers who have contracted with the invention promoter in the past 5 years, not including customers who have purchased trade show services, research, advertising, or other nonmarketing services from the invention promoter, or who have defaulted in their payment to the invention promoter;
(3) the total number of customers known by the invention promoter to have received a net financial profit as a direct result of the invention promotion services provided by such invention promoter;
(4) the total number of customers known by the invention promoter to have received license agreements for their inventions as a direct result of the invention promotion services provided by such invention promoter; and
(5) the names and addresses of all previous invention promotion companies with which the invention promoter or its officers have collectively or individually been affiliated in the previous 10 years.
(b)
(A) the amount of actual damages incurred by the customer; or
(B) at the election of the customer at any time before final judgment is rendered, statutory damages in a sum of not more than $5,000, as the court considers just.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), in a case where the customer sustains the burden of proof, and the court finds, that the invention promoter intentionally misrepresented or omitted a material fact to such customer, or willfully failed to disclose such information as required under subsection (a), with the purpose of deceiving that customer, the court may increase damages to not more than three times the amount awarded, taking into account past complaints made against the invention promoter that resulted in regulatory sanctions or other corrective actions based on those records compiled by the Commissioner of Patents under subsection (d).
(c)
(1) a "contract for invention promotion services" means a contract by which an invention promoter undertakes invention promotion services for a customer;
(2) a "customer" is any individual who enters into a contract with an invention promoter for invention promotion services;
(3) the term "invention promoter" means any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other entity who offers to perform or performs invention promotion services for, or on behalf of, a customer, and who holds itself out through advertising in any mass media as providing such services, but does not include—
(A) any department or agency of the Federal Government or of a State or local government;
(B) any nonprofit, charitable, scientific, or educational organization, qualified under applicable State law or described under section 170(b)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
(C) any person or entity involved in the evaluation to determine commercial potential of, or offering to license or sell, a utility patent or a previously filed nonprovisional utility patent application;
(D) any party participating in a transaction involving the sale of the stock or assets of a business; or
(E) any party who directly engages in the business of retail sales of products or the distribution of products; and
(4) the term "invention promotion services" means the procurement or attempted procurement for a customer of a firm, corporation, or other entity to develop and market products or services that include the invention of the customer.
(d)
(1)
(2)
(Added
Editorial Notes
References in Text
Section 170(b)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, referred to in subsec. (c)(3)(B), is classified to
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date
§298. Advice of counsel
The failure of an infringer to obtain the advice of counsel with respect to any allegedly infringed patent, or the failure of the infringer to present such advice to the court or jury, may not be used to prove that the accused infringer willfully infringed the patent or that the infringer intended to induce infringement of the patent.
(Added
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date
Except as otherwise provided in
§299. Joinder of parties
(a)
(1) any right to relief is asserted against the parties jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences relating to the making, using, importing into the United States, offering for sale, or selling of the same accused product or process; and
(2) questions of fact common to all defendants or counterclaim defendants will arise in the action.
(b)
(c)
(Added
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2013—Subsec. (a).
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 2013 Amendment
Amendment by
Effective Date
Section applicable to any civil action commenced on or after Sept. 16, 2011, see section 19(e) of