Source: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title35-section282&num=0&edition=prelim
Timestamp: 2020-07-05 08:38:28
Document Index: 302105503

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 282', '§10', '§10', '§161', '§203', '§2', '§1000', '§4402', '§13206', '§15', '§69', '§2', '§1', '§20', '§15', '§13206', '§1000', '§4402', '§1000', '§4732', '§13206']

[USC02] 35 USC 282: Presumption of validity; defenses
<< Previous TITLE 35 / PART III / CHAPTER 29 / § 282 Next >>
35 USC 282: Presumption of validity; defenses Text contains those laws in effect on July 4, 2020
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 812 ; Pub. L. 89–83, §10, July 24, 1965, 79 Stat. 261 ; Pub. L. 94–131, §10, Nov. 14, 1975, 89 Stat. 692 ; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, §161(7), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 49 ; Pub. L. 98–417, title II, §203, Sept. 24, 1984, 98 Stat. 1603 ; Pub. L. 104–41, §2, Nov. 1, 1995, 109 Stat. 352 ; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §§4402(b)(1), 4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536 , 1501A-560, 1501A-582; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, §13206(b)(1)(B), (4), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1906 ; Pub. L. 112–29, §§15(a), 20(g), (j), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 328 , 334, 335.)
Derived from Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §69 (R.S. 4920, amended (1) Mar. 3, 1897, ch. 391, §2, 29 Stat. 692 , (2) Aug. 5, 1939, ch. 450, §1, 53 Stat. 1212 ).
2011-Pub. L. 112–29, §20(g)(1), (2)(A), (C), (3), (j), designated first to third pars. as subsecs. (a) to (c), respectively, inserted headings, in subsec. (a), struck out third sentence which read "Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if a claim to a composition of matter is held invalid and that claim was the basis of a determination of nonobviousness under section 103(b)(1), the process shall no longer be considered nonobvious solely on the basis of section 103(b)(1).", in par. (2) of subsec. (b), struck out "of this title" after "II" and substituted "patentability." for "patentability,", and in introductory provisions of subsec. (c), struck out "of this title" after "156" and substituted "In an action involving the validity or infringement of a patent" for "In actions involving the validity or infringement of a patent" and "Court of Federal Claims" for "Claims Court".
Pub. L. 112–29, §15(a), amended second par. by substituting "(3) Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit for failure to comply with-
2002-Third par. Pub. L. 107–273, §13206(b)(4), made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4402(b)(1)]. See 1999 Amendment note below.
1999-Third par. Pub. L. 106–113, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4732(a)(10)(A)], as amended by Pub. L. 107–273, §13206(b)(1)(B), substituted "(2) by the Director," for "(2) by the Commissioner,".
1995-First par. Pub. L. 104–41 inserted after second sentence "Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if a claim to a composition of matter is held invalid and that claim was the basis of a determination of nonobviousness under section 103(b)(1), the process shall no longer be considered nonobvious solely on the basis of section 103(b)(1)."
1984-Pub. L. 98–417 inserted provision at end that the invalidity of the extension of a patent term or any portion thereof under section 156 of this title because of the material failure by the applicant for the extension, or by the Commissioner, to comply with the requirements of such section shall be a defense in any action involving the infringement of a patent during the period of the extension of its term and shall be pleaded, and that a due diligence determination under section 156(d)(2) is not subject to review in such an action.
1982-Third par. Pub. L. 97–164 substituted "Claims Court" for "Court of Claims".
1975-First par. Pub. L. 94–131 made presumption of validity applicable to claim of a patent in multiple dependent form and multiple dependent claims and substituted "asserting such invalidity" for "asserting it".
1965-Pub. L. 89–83 required each claim of a patent (whether in independent or dependent form) to be presumed valid independently of the validity of other claims and required dependent claims to be presumed valid even though dependent upon an invalid claim.