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. § 296

Liability of States, instrumentalities of States, and State officials for infringement of patents

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 35 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—Any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his official capacity, shall not be immune, under the eleventh amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity, for infringement of a patent under section 271, or for any other violation under this title.(b)Remedies.—In a suit described in subsection (a) for a violation described in that subsection, remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for the violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in a suit against any private entity. Such remedies include damages, interest, costs, and treble damages under section 284, attorney fees under section 285, and the additional remedy for infringement of design patents under section 289.(Added Pub. L. 102–560, § 2(a)(2), Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4230.)Editorial NotesConstitutionality

For information regarding the constitutionality of this section, as added by section 2(a)(2) of Pub. L. 102–560, see the Table of Laws Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court on the Constitution Annotated website, constitution.congress.gov.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective with respect to violations that occur on or after Oct. 28, 1992, see section 4 of Pub. L. 102–560, set out as an Effective Date of 1992 Amendment note under section 2541 of Title 7, Agriculture.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., & the Regents of the Univ. of California, 998 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., & the Regents of the Univ. of California, 998 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1993). · cites it 3× “-Any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his official capacity, shall not be immune, under the eleventh amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of sovereign…”
Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. Coll. Sav. Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999). · cites it 2× “See 35 U. S. C. § 296 (a) ("Any State. . . shall not be immune, under the eleventh amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal court.”
Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P. R. v. Centro De Periodismo Investigativo, Inc., 598 U.S. 339 (2023). · cites it 2× “, 35 U. S. C. § 296 (a), and when a statute creates a cause of action and authorizes suit against a government on that claim, see, e.”
Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 139 S. Ct. 1853 (2019). “3 For example, the statute expressly includes the Government as a "person" in § 296(a), which, as enacted, provided that States "shall not be immune .”
Alaska v. EEOC, 564 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “2d 575 (1999) (quoting the Patent Remedy Act, 35 U.S.C. § 296 (a), which provides that "[a]ny State .”
Adam Barbour v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., United States of Am., Intervenor, 374 F.3d 1161 (D.C. Cir. 2004). “Whatever the validity of WMATA’s claim that the language of the CRREA’s opening clause cannot do double duty, that claim simply ignores the statute’s closing words, which, like those of the Rehabilitation Act, single out recipients of “Federal financial assistance” as the only…”
Coll. Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 948 F. Supp. 400 (D.N.J. 1996). · cites it 2× “Both enactments provide that no state or state instrumentality is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment for violations of these statutes.”
Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P. R. v. Centro De Periodismo Investigativo, Inc., 598 U.S. 339 (2023). · cites it 2× “, 35 U. S. C. §296 (a), and when a statute creates a cause of action and authorizes suit against a government on that claim, see, e.”
Rodriguez v. Texas Comm'n on the Arts, 199 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2000). “§ 511 (a) (1994) with 35 U.S.C. § 296 (a) (1994 ed. and Supp. III).”
Jacobs v. Memphis Convention & Visitors Bureau, 710 F. Supp. 2d 663 (W.D. Tenn. 2010). “§ 271 (h) and 35 U.S.C. § 296 (a). 14 . The parties have cited no decision from any court reaching the opposite conclusion; nor has the Court's own research uncovered any contrary judicial opinion.”
Coll. Sav. Bank, & United States v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 148 F.3d 1343 (2d Cir. 1998). “35 U.S.C. § 296 (a) (1994). We agree with the parties that, with this statutory language, Congress expressed quite pellucidly its intent to abrogate the states’ immunity from federal suit for patent infringement.”
Ward Ex Rel. Ward v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs., 72 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (D.N.M. 1999). “for infringement of a patent,” 35 U.S.C. § 296 (a); or the ADA, the statute at issue in Martin v.”
Show all 19 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.