35 U.S.C. § 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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 246
cases (37 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC
SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC (2017)
“A Federal Circuit panel nevertheless affirmed the District Court’s laches holding based on Circuit precedent, which permitted laches to be asserted against a claim for damages incurred within the Patent Act’s 6-year limitations period, 35 U. S. C. §286 . The en banc court…”
SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag SCA Personal Care, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC (2015)
“(quoting P.J. Federico, Commentary on the New Patent Act, 35 U.”
Bendix Corp. v. United States (1982)
“In reaching this solution, the court pointed out that in actions against private infringers under Title 35, United States Code, there is no statute of limitations which limits the time within which an action must be filed but that recovery by a patent owner is limited by 35…”
Voisin v. United States (2008)
“§ 2501 should be tolled from the time that “the government receives ‘a written claim for compensation’ by the claimant that is sufficiently detailed as to provide the government a realistic opportunity to consider and settle the claim” until the government makes a final decision…”
Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc. (2009)
“1992); 35 U.S.C. § 286 . With respect to the first laches inquiry, Basic argues that Vita-Mix's CEO was aware of Basic's accused blenders "when they first came out," and that Vita-Mix brought suit over five years after learning of the accused infringement.”
Kenall Mfg. Co. v. Cooper Lighting, LLC (2018)
“2d 292 (2017) ("Laches cannot be interposed as a defense against damages where the infringement occurred within the period prescribed by [the statute of limitations set out in 35 U.S.C. § 286 ]."); W. Bend , 794 F.3d at 678-79 (holding that under Illinois law, laches does not…”
Pinkette Clothing, Inc. v. Cosmetic Warriors Ltd. (2018)
“” 35 U.S.C. § 286 . Similar to the Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations, the Patent Act’s six-year statute of limitations “represents a judgment by Congress that a patentee may recover damages for any infringement committed within six years of the filing of the…”
McCreary v. United States (1996)
“§ 2501 & 35 U.S.C. § 286 , from seeking reasonable and entire compensation for the alleged unauthorized use of the McCreary patent; and (2) plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant has infringed the McCreary…”
Custer v. United States (1980)
“The ’262 patent expired on August 24, 1971, the term of the patent being 17 years from the date of issue.”
Exmark Manufacturing Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC (2018)
“The Supreme Court recently held in SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, that laches is no longer a defense against damages for patent infringement that occurred within 35 U.”
Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Complaint v. Scimed Life Systems, Inc., and Robert L. Hess, Cross (1993)
“Drawing an analogy to the six year limit to recovery of damages for past infringement, 35 U.S.C. § 286 , and the six year statute of limitations applying to conversion of personal property under Minnesota law, the district court held that Mr.”
Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. (2014)
“" 35 U.S.C. § 286 . The Act also provides that "[n]oninfringement, absence of liability for infringement or unenforceability" may be raised "in any action involving the validity or infringement of a patent.”
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.