35 U.S.C. § 204

Preference for United States industry

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 35 CasesGoogle Scholar

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, no small business firm or nonprofit organization which receives title to any subject invention and no assignee of any such small business firm or nonprofit organization shall grant to any person the exclusive right to use or sell any subject invention in the United States unless such person agrees that any products embodying the subject invention or produced through the use of the subject invention will be manufactured substantially in the United States. However, in individual cases, the requirement for such an agreement may be waived by the Federal agency under whose funding agreement the invention was made upon a showing by the small business firm, nonprofit organization, or assignee that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1992–2010 · leading case: Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Alza Corp., 804 F. Supp. 614 (D.N.J. 1992).
Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Alza Corp., 804 F. Supp. 614 (D.N.J. 1992). “35 U.S.C. § 204 . Additionally, Ciba-Geigy agreed to “reasonably fill the market demand for [the] licensed product.”
E8 Pharm. LLC v. Affymetrix, Inc., 680 F. Supp. 2d 292 (D. Mass. 2010). “4 — and the reason for its inclusion — was not to describe or elaborate on the rights granted by the License Agreement, but to ensure that MIT complied with the Bayh-Dole Act’s United States manufacturing preference, 35 U.S.C. § 204 . It appears § 2.4 was added at MIT’s request…”
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.