U.S. Code » Title 35 » Part PART III— PATENTS AND PROTECTION OF PATENT RIGHTS › Chapter CHAPTER 29— REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT, AND OTHER ACTIONS

35 U.S.C. § 290

Notice of patent suits

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

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.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2022 · leading case: Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D. Mass. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D. Mass. 2001). · cites it 3× “In addition, Amgen filed a notice pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 290 with the Clerk of the *147 District Court of Massachusetts.”
Unique Prod. Solutions, Ltd. v. HY-Grade Valve, Inc., 765 F. Supp. 2d 997 (N.D. Ohio 2011). · cites it 3× “), is constitutional based upon: (1) the history of qui tam statutes in the United States; (2) the False Marking Statute being civil rather than criminal (citing Riley and rejecting Morrison); (3) the government’s ability to intervene as of right or upon the court’s permission…”
Kothmann Enter., Inc. v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 455 F. Supp. 2d 608 (S.D. Tex. 2006). · cites it 2× “The Office of the Clerk of Court of the Southern District of Texas apparently did give the routine notice to the PTO of an infringement action involving the ’003 Patent, required under 35 U.S.C. § 290 . 10 The Clerk’s Office did not give notice when the ’820 Patent issued and…”
San Francisco Tech., Inc. v. Graphic Packaging Int'l, Inc., 798 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (N.D. Ga. 2011). · cites it 2× “, 2011 WL 1599292 at *5 (N.D.Ill. April 28, 2011). Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) provides, [T]he court must permit anyone to intervene who .”
Rogers v. Tristar Prods., Inc., 793 F. Supp. 2d 711 (E.D. Pa. 2011). · cites it 2× “For example, following actions under section 292, (1) district court clerks are required to apprise the Executive Branch of the action, see 35 U.S.C. § 290 (requiring the clerks of the United States courts to give notice of claims brought under Title 35 to the Director of the…”
Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co., 640 F. Supp. 2d 714 (E.D. Va. 2009). “See 35 U.S.C. § 290 . The United States may intervene in a qui tam action, either as of right, see Fed.”
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 106 F. Supp. 2d 696 (D.N.J. 2000). “; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall notify the Commissioner of Patents within thirty (30) days in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 . In the written opinion issued along with that Order, this Court stated: After carefully consideration [sic], for the…”
Biogen Idec Ma Inc. v. Trs. of Columbia Univ. City of New York, 332 F. Supp. 2d 286 (D. Mass. 2004). “As required by 35 U.S.C. § 290 , the PTO has been informed of this litigation by the Clerk of this court.”
In Re Convertible Rowing Exerciser Pat. Litig., 721 F. Supp. 596 (D. Del. 1989). · cites it 2× “Under 35 U.S.C. § 290 (1982), courts of the United States must notify the Commissioner of both the filing of a patent action and the judgment entered therein.”
Nisus Corp. v. Perma-Chink Sys., Inc., 421 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (E.D. Tenn. 2006). · cites it 2× “ut on notice of Nisus I by a notice sent by the Court to the PTO pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 290 . Mr. Altera contends that such notice substituted for Nisus’s duty to disclose the litigation.”
Haney v. Timesavers, Inc., 900 F. Supp. 1378 (D. Or. 1995). “The Patent Office was notified, however, by this court of the existence of this litigation pursuant to the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 290 . The Patent Office knew of the prior litigation and the prior art.”
Hollander v. Ranbaxy Labs. Inc., 804 F. Supp. 2d 344 (E.D. Pa. 2011). “Although § 292(b) does not have any internal control mechanisms, courts find other sources of law provide sufficient control: the United States is entitled to notice of any patent litigation, 35 U.S.C. § 290 ; the United States has a right to appear in any action in which it has…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.