25 U.S.C. § 271
Employment of instructors for Indians
The President may, in every case where he shall judge improvement in the habits and condition of such Indians practicable, and that the means of instruction can be introduced with their own consent, employ capable persons of good moral character to instruct them in the mode of agriculture suited to their situation; and for teaching their children in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and performing such other duties as may be enjoined according to such instructions and rules as the President may give and prescribe for the regulation of their conduct, in the discharge of their duties. A report of the proceedings adopted in the execution of this provision shall be annually laid before Congress.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case: Brackeen v. Haaland, 994 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2021).
Brackeen v. Haaland, 994 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2021). “at 19, 20 (citing 25 U.S.C. §§ 271 -304b; Frederick E. Hoxie, A Final no force”); see also Ablavsky, Indian Commerce, at 1045–50 (describing Georgia’s ultimately unsuccessful efforts to assert its “territorial sovereignty” against Cherokee treaty).”
Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. v. Forest Labs., Inc., 527 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “Although Teva had filed a Paragraph IV certification for all five of Novartis' Orange-Book-listed patents, Novartis only brought suit under 25 U.S.C. § 271 (e)(2)(A) for infringement of one of those patents.”
Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation, 512 F.3d 921 (7th Cir. 2008). “We note that one of the claims raised by the Nation in its motion for summary judgment is that the renegotiation process set forth in the Dispute Resolution provision, which permits the arbitrator to decide on substitute provisions in the Compact, is preempted by 25 U.S.C. § 271…”
Dorman Prods., Inc. v. Paccar, Inc., 201 F. Supp. 3d 663 (E.D. Pa. 2016). “PACCAR alleges in its Answer and Counterclaims that the aftermarket replacement headlights sold by Dorman infringe on three of PACCAR’s design patents, claiming both infringement under 25 U.S.C. § 271 and willful infringement under 35 U.”
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 2d 602 (D. Del. 2013). “at ¶24) Teva’s ANDA application, containing a Paragraph TV certification, constituted an act of infringement of claim 8 of the '244 Patent under 25 U.S.C. § 271 (e)(2), to the extent that claim was found to be valid and enforceable.”
Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 361 F. Supp. 2d 210 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). “Procedural History The Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this action in August 2002, alleging violations of United States patent laws, 25 U.S.C. §§ 271 , 281, 283. They filed an amended complaint later that month, which the Defendant answered in September 2002.”
Bayer Schera Pharma AG v. Sandoz, Inc., 741 F. Supp. 2d 541 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). “2) Defendants further argue that Bayer’s § 271(b) inducement claim fails, because a method-of-use patent holder “may not sue an ANDA applicant under 25 U.S.C. § 271 (b) for inducing infringement of its patent if the ANDA applicant is not seeking FDA approval for the use claimed…”
Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharm. U.S.A., Inc., 882 F. Supp. 2d 643 (D. Del. 2012). “On April 29, 2009, the plaintiffs filed suit against Alphapharm and Mylan for infringement of the '876 Patent, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 271 (e)(2)(A). 72. On March 1, 2010, Alphapharm filed a revised Patent Certification with the FDA and amended Mylan’s ANDA to include a…”
Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 386 F. Supp. 2d 526 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). “Procedural History The Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this action in August 2002, alleging violations of United States patent laws, 25 U.S.C. §§ 271 , 281, 283. They filed an amended complaint later that month, which the Defendant answered in September 2002.”
Cif Licensing, LLC v. Agere Sys. Inc., 727 F. Supp. 2d 337 (D. Del. 2010). “At that time, Defendant orally moved for judgment as a matter of law of, inter alia, no infringement of any claim of any asserted patent, no infringement of any claim of the '776 patent specifically, no infringement by inducement, no infringement under 25 U.S.C. § 271 (f), and…”
Trove Brands, LLC v. JH Studios, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2020). “1920, 1926 (2015) (citing 25 U.S.C. § 271 ). Count I includes claims for direct infringement, induced infringement, and contributory infringement under the banner of “infringement of the ’032 Patent.”
Trading Tech. Int'l, Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2020). “2129 , 2138–39 (2018) (explaining that 25 U.S.C. §§ 271 (f)(2) & 284 allow patent owners to recover lost foreign profits).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.