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. § 299

Joinder of parties

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 35 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Joinder of Accused Infringers.—With respect to any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, other than an action or trial in which an act of infringement under section 271(e)(2) has been pled, parties that are accused infringers may be joined in one action as defendants or counterclaim defendants, or have their actions consolidated for trial, only if—(1) any right to relief is asserted against the parties jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences relating to the making, using, importing into the United States, offering for sale, or selling of the same accused product or process; and(2) questions of fact common to all defendants or counterclaim defendants will arise in the action.(b)Allegations Insufficient for Joinder.—For purposes of this subsection, accused infringers may not be joined in one action as defendants or counterclaim defendants, or have their actions consolidated for trial, based solely on allegations that they each have infringed the patent or patents in suit.(c)Waiver.—A party that is an accused infringer may waive the limitations set forth in this section with respect to that party.(Added Pub. L. 112–29, § 19(d)(1), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 332; amended Pub. L. 112–274, § 1(c), Jan. 14, 2013, 126 Stat. 2456.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2013—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 112–274 substituted “only if” for “or counterclaim defendants only if” in introductory provisions.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2013 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 112–274 effective Jan. 14, 2013, and applicable to proceedings commenced on or after such date, see section 1(n) of Pub. L. 112–274, set out as a note under section 5 of this title.

Effective Date

Section applicable to any civil action commenced on or after Sept. 16, 2011, see section 19(e) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as an Effective Date of 2011 Amendment note under section 1295 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63 cases (44 in the last 5 years), 2012–2026 · leading case: In Re EMC Corporation
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re EMC Corporation (2012) cafc · cites it 3× “284 , 332-33 (2011) (to be" codified at 35 U.S.C. § 299 ) (providing in relevant part that accused infringers may be joined in one action as defendants or have their actions consolidated for trial only if the allegations of infringement “aris[e] out of the same transaction,…”
MGT Gaming, Inc. v. WMS Gaming, Inc. (2013) mssd · cites it 9× “However, in actions involving patents, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), 35 U.S.C. § 299 , governs joinder. It sets a higher standard for joinder and prohibits joinder unless the claimed infringement by each defendant arises out of the same transactions relating to…”
Thermolife International LLC v. Gnc Corporation (2019) cafc · cites it 2× “Although separate suits were filed, see 35 U.S.C. § 299 (broadly requiring separate filings), the district court, beginning in August 2013, consolidated the cases before it for pre-trial purposes.”
In Re Nintendo Co., Ltd. (2013) cafc · cites it 4× “The court first concluded that the defendants could permissibly be joined in this case under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 35 U.S.C. § 299 because UltimatePointer had asserted “at least one common claim of patent infringement against all defendants for the…”
Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America Corp. (2014) cafc · cites it 2× “See 35 U.S.C. § 299 (a); In re EMC Corp., 677 F.”
Team Worldwide Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2018) txed · cites it 11× “Joinder of Parties- 35 U.S.C. § 299 Under Section 19(d) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, P.”
In re Bear Creek Technologies, Inc., ('722) Patent Litigation (2012) jpml · cites it 4× “Further, at oral argument, counsel for the Vonage defendants argued that the joinder provision of the recently passed America Invents Act, 35 U.S.C. § 299 , limits our authority under 28 U.”
Smart Audio Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc. (2012) ded “Apple also references 35 U.S.C. § 299 (b), which provides that “accused infringers may not be joined in one action as defendants .”
Body Science LLC v. Boston Scientific Corp. (2012) ilnd “” 35 U.S.C. § 299 (b). . Plaintiff’s reliance on an order issued in Triangle Software, LLC v.”
Astornet Technologies Inc. v. Bae Systems, Inc. (2015) cafc “el explained at oral argument that MorphoTrust’s counsel had played a role in persuading Astornet to take the step that NCR and MorphoTrust now treat as the second dismissal, namely, the separation of the 245 action into three separate actions against the three distinct…”
In re Apple Inc. (2015) cafc · cites it 2× “The district court concluded that the parties were not improperly joined under 35 U.S.C. § 299 , noting that “the majority of the Movants appear to also share the Court’s conclusion.”
Klamath Irrigation District v. the United States 01-591l and 01-5910l Through 01 (2013) uscfc “12, 2012) (applying the same principle to the joinder rules of the American Invents Act, 35 U.S.C. § 299 ); H-W Tech., L.C. v. Apple, Inc.”
Show all 63 citing cases →
— 35 U.S.C. § 299(a)(1) — 1 case
GM Global Technology Operations, LLC v. Quality Collision Parts, Inc. and General Motors Company, Inc. and General Motor (2026) mied
— 35 U.S.C. § 299(b) — 2 cases
AQUAPAW BRANDS LLC v. PUSIFICA (2025) pawd
GM Global Technology Operations, LLC v. Quality Collision Parts, Inc. and General Motors Company, Inc. and General Motor (2026) mied
— 35 U.S.C. § 299(c) — 5 cases
AQUAPAW BRANDS LLC v. FLO PET (2022) pawd
AQUAPAW BRANDS LLC v. YAN-PENG (2022) pawd
AQUAPAW LLC v. ALLNICE (2022) pawd
AQUAPAW BRANDS LLC v. TIKTOKS (2022) pawd
AQUAPAW BRANDS LLC v. PUSIFICA (2025) pawd
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.