35 U.S.C. § 272
Temporary presence in the United States
The use of any invention in any vessel, aircraft or vehicle of any country which affords similar privileges to vessels, aircraft or vehicles of the United States, entering the United States temporarily or accidentally, shall not constitute infringement of any patent, if the invention is used exclusively for the needs of the vessel, aircraft or vehicle and is not offered for sale or sold in or used for the manufacture of anything to be sold in or exported from the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1974–2015 · leading case: Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 29 Fed. Cl. 197 (Fed. Cl. 1993).
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 29 Fed. Cl. 197 (Fed. Cl. 1993). “With respect to AMPTE UKS, we find use by the government within the meaning of § 1498(a) but conclude that the temporary presence doctrine, as contained in 35 U.S.C. § 272 , proscribes imposition of liability.”
Westerngeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp., 776 F. Supp. 2d 342 (S.D. Tex. 2011). “Finally, we determine whether, as a matter of law, the supply of the Geo Celtic from Dutch Harbor, Alaska falls within the § 271(f)’s proscription on the supply of components from the United States or is exempt under 35 U.S.C. § 272 . 1. Sufficiency of Form 18 Complaint As a…”
Nat'l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “NSC moved for a preliminary injunction, and the district court granted NSC’s motion, holding inter alia that NSC had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, that CPR’s defense to infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 272 lacked substantial merit, and that CPR’s invalidity…”
Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Zydus Pharm. USA, 151 F. Supp. 3d 515 (D.N.J. 2015). “, Otsuka’s claims for induced infringement equally rest upon 35 U.S.C. § 272 (e)(2)(A), which provides that an ANDA filer can only be liable for infringement if it submits an ANDA seeking approval "for a drug claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent” prior…”
Nat'l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 254 F. Supp. 2d 527 (E.D. Pa. 2003). “Section 272 Defense CPR claims that it has a complete defense to NSC’s infringement claim under 35 U.S.C. § 272 because the accused rail cars will be temporarily present in the United States.”
Cali v. Japan Airlines, Inc., 380 F. Supp. 1120 (E.D.N.Y 1974). “defendants contend (without conceding that the patent is valid or has been infringed) that, even if the patent is valid and the engines used in certain of their aircraft would be infringing engines if made or sold or used in the United States, their use of the invention of the…”
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.