Skip to content
Congress Index

119th Congress

Menu

119th Congress

Title 35 — Patents

Part III · Chapter 29 — Remedies for Infringement of Patent, and Other Actions

§ 282. Presumption of validity; defenses

Statutory text

(a)

In General.—

A patent shall be presumed valid. Each claim of a patent (whether in independent, dependent, or multiple dependent form) shall be presumed valid independently of the validity of other claims; dependent or multiple dependent claims shall be presumed valid even though dependent upon an invalid claim. The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.

(b)

Defenses.—

The following shall be defenses in any action involving the validity or infringement of a patent and shall be pleaded:

(1)

Noninfringement, absence of liability for infringement or unenforceability.

(2)

Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit on any ground specified in part II as a condition for patentability.

(3)

Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit for failure to comply with—

(A)

any requirement of section 112, except that the failure to disclose the best mode shall not be a basis on which any claim of a patent may be canceled or held invalid or otherwise unenforceable; or

(B)

any requirement of section 251.

(4)

Any other fact or act made a defense by this title.

(c)

Notice of Actions; Actions During Extension of Patent Term.—

In an action involving the validity or infringement of a patent the party asserting invalidity or noninfringement shall give notice in the pleadings or otherwise in writing to the adverse party at least thirty days before the trial, of the country, number, date, and name of the patentee of any patent, the title, date, and page numbers of any publication to be relied upon as anticipation of the patent in suit or, except in actions in the United States Court of Federal Claims, as showing the state of the art, and the name and address of any person who may be relied upon as the prior inventor or as having prior knowledge of or as having previously used or offered for sale the invention of the patent in suit. In the absence of such notice proof of the said matters may not be made at the trial except on such terms as the court requires. Invalidity of the extension of a patent term or any portion thereof under section 154(b) or 156 because of the material failure—

(1)

by the applicant for the extension, or

(2)

by the Director,

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. A due diligence determination under section 156(d)(2) is not subject to review in such an action.

Legislative history

Reconstructed from this section’s Code source credit and amendment notes, resolved against the local Statutes at Large. Editorial notes are evidence, not the law that made the change.

  1. July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 812 · 66 Stat. 812

    Enacted · 35 U.S.C. § 282

    July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 812

    Source evidence

    Code source credit
    July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 812

  2. Pub. L. 89–83 § 10 · 79 Stat. 259

    Changed · 35 U.S.C. § 282

    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

    Source evidence

    Code amendment note
    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.

    Enacted provision · exact public law section
    Sec. 10. Section 282 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by Patents, validity. deletion of the first paragraph thereof and substituting therefor the following paragraph: “A patent shall be presumed valid. Each claim of a patent (whether in independent or dependent form) shall be presumed valid independently of the validity of other claims; dependent claims shall be presumed valid even though dependent upon an invalid claim. The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting it.”

  3. Pub. L. 94–131 § 10 · 89 Stat. 685

    Substituted · 35 U.S.C. § 282

    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”

    Source evidence

    Code amendment note
    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”.

    Enacted provision · exact public law section
    Sec. 10. The first paragraph of section 282 of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: “§282. Presumption of validity; defenses “A patent shall be presumed valid. Each claim of a patent (whether in independent, dependent, or multiple dependent form) shall be presumed valid independently of the Validity of other claims; dependent or multiple dependent claims shall be presumed valid even though dependent upon an invalid claim. The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.”.

  4. Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982

    Pub. L. 97–164 title I § 161(7) · 96 Stat. 25

    Substituted · 35 U.S.C. § 282

    Pub. L. 97–164 substituted “Claims Court” for “Court of Claims”

    Source evidence

    Code amendment note
    Third par. Pub. L. 97–164 substituted “Claims Court” for “Court of Claims”.

    Enacted provision · exact public law section
    (7) Section 282 of title 35, United States Code.

  5. Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984

    Pub. L. 98–417 title II § 203 · 98 Stat. 1585

    Inserted · 35 U.S.C. § 282

    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

    Source evidence

    Code amendment note
    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.

    Enacted provision · exact public law section
    Sec. 203. Section 282 of title Ante, p. 1598. 35, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: “Invalidity of the extension of a patent term or any portion thereof under section 156 of this tide because of the material failure— “(1) by the applicant for the extension, or “(2) 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. A due diligence determination under section 156(d)(2) is not subject to review in such an action.”.

  6. Pub. L. 104–41 § 2 · 109 Stat. 351

    Inserted · 35 U.S.C. § 282

    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).”

    Source evidence

    Code amendment note
    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).”

    Enacted provision · exact public law section
    SEC. 2. PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY; DEFENSES. Section 282 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the second sentence of the first paragraph the following: “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).”.

  7. District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000

    Pub. L. 106–113 § 1000(a)(9)(tIV)(s4732)(a)(10)(A) · 113 Stat. 1501

    1. Amended · 35 U.S.C. § 282

      Pub. L. 106–113, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4732(a)(10)(A)], as amended by Pub. L. 107–273, § 13206(b)(1)(B)

    2. Substituted · 35 U.S.C. § 282

      Pub. L. 106–113, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4732(a)(10)(A)], as substituted “(2) by the Director,” for “(2) by the Commissioner,”

    Source evidence

    Code amendment note
    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,”.

  8. District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000

    Pub. L. 106–113 § 1000(a)(9)(tIV)(s4402)(b)(1) · 113 Stat. 1501

    1. Amended · 35 U.S.C. § 282

      Pub. L. 106–113, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4402(b)(1)], as amended by Pub. L. 107–273, § 13206(b)(4)

    2. Substituted · 35 U.S.C. § 282

      Pub. L. 106–113, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4402(b)(1)], as substituted “154(b) or 156 of this title” for “156 of this title”

    Target inherited from the preceding amendment note.

    Source evidence

    Code amendment note
    Pub. L. 106–113, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4402(b)(1)], as amended by Pub. L. 107–273, § 13206(b)(4), substituted “154(b) or 156 of this title” for “156 of this title”.

  9. Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002

    Pub. L. 107–273 § 13206(b)(4) · 116 Stat. 1758

    Changed · 35 U.S.C. § 282

    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

    Source evidence

    Code amendment note
    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.

    Enacted provision · exact public law section
    (4) Section 4402(b)(1) of that Act is amended by striking “in the fourth paragraph”.

  10. Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002

    Pub. L. 107–273 § 13206(b)(1)(B) · 116 Stat. 1758

    Changed · 35 U.S.C. § 282

    Pub. L. 107–273, § 13206(b)(1)(B), made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4732(a)(10)(A)]. See 1999 Amendment note below

    Target inherited from the preceding amendment note.

    Source evidence

    Code amendment note
    Pub. L. 107–273, § 13206(b)(1)(B), made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4732(a)(10)(A)]. See 1999 Amendment note below.

    Enacted provision · exact public law section
    (B) in paragraph (10)(A), by inserting after “title 35, United States Code,” the following: “other than sections 1 through 6 (as amended by chapter 1 of this subtitle),”.

  11. Pub. L. 112–29 § 20(g)(1) · 125 Stat. 328

    1. Amended · 35 U.S.C. § 282

      Pub. L. 112–29, § 20(g)(1), (2)(A), (C), (3), (j), designated first to third pars. as subsecs. (a) to (c), respectively

    2. Inserted · 35 U.S.C. § 282

      Pub. L. 112–29, § 20(g)(1), (2)(A), (C), (3), (j), inserted headings, in subsec. (a)

    3. Struck · 35 U.S.C. § 282

      Pub. L. 112–29, § 20(g)(1), (2)(A), (C), (3), (j), 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)

    4. Struck · 35 U.S.C. § 282

      Pub. L. 112–29, § 20(g)(1), (2)(A), (C), (3), (j), struck out “of this title” after “II”

    5. Substituted · 35 U.S.C. § 282

      Pub. L. 112–29, § 20(g)(1), (2)(A), (C), (3), (j), substituted “patentability.” for “patentability,”, and in introductory provisions of subsec. (c)

    6. Struck · 35 U.S.C. § 282

      Pub. L. 112–29, § 20(g)(1), (2)(A), (C), (3), (j), struck out “of this title” after “156”

    7. Substituted · 35 U.S.C. § 282

      Pub. L. 112–29, § 20(g)(1), (2)(A), (C), (3), (j), substituted “In an action involving the validity or infringement of a patent” for “In actions involving the validity or infringement of a patent”

    8. Substituted · 35 U.S.C. § 282

      Pub. L. 112–29, § 20(g)(1), (2)(A), (C), (3), (j), substituted “Court of Federal Claims” for “Claims Court”

    Source evidence

    Code amendment note
    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”.

    Enacted provision · exact public law section
    (1) in the first undesignated paragraph— (A) by striking “A patent” and inserting “(a) In General.—A patent”; and (B) by striking the third sentence;

    Effective date note
    Amendment by section 15(a) of Pub. L. 112–29 effective on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to proceedings commenced on or after that date, see section 15(c) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 119 of this title. Amendment by section 20(g), (j) of Pub. L. 112–29 effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to proceedings commenced on or after that effective date, see section 20(l) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 2 of this title.

  12. Pub. L. 112–29 § 20(g)(2)(B) · 125 Stat. 328

    Substituted · 35 U.S.C. § 282

    Pub. L. 112–29, § 20(g)(2)(B), which directed substitution of “unenforceability.” for “uneforceability,” in par. (1) of former second par. which was designated subsec. (b), was executed by making the substitution for “unenforceability,”, to reflect the probable intent of Congress

    Target inherited from the preceding amendment note.

    Source evidence

    Code amendment note
    Pub. L. 112–29, § 20(g)(2)(B), which directed substitution of “unenforceability.” for “uneforceability,” in par. (1) of former second par. which was designated subsec. (b), was executed by making the substitution for “unenforceability,”, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

    Enacted provision · exact public law section
    (B) in paragraph (1), by striking “uneforceability,” and inserting “unenforceability.”; and

    Effective date note
    Amendment by section 15(a) of Pub. L. 112–29 effective on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to proceedings commenced on or after that date, see section 15(c) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 119 of this title. Amendment by section 20(g), (j) of Pub. L. 112–29 effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to proceedings commenced on or after that effective date, see section 20(l) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 2 of this title.

  13. Pub. L. 112–29 § 15(a) · 125 Stat. 328

    Substituted · 35 U.S.C. § 282

    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—

    Target inherited from the preceding amendment note.

    Source evidence

    Code amendment note
    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—

    “(A) any requirement of section 112, except that the failure to disclose the best mode shall not be a basis on which any claim of a patent may be canceled or held invalid or otherwise unenforceable; or “(B) any requirement of section 251.” for “(3) Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit for failure to comply with any requirement of sections 112 or 251 of this title,”.

    Enacted provision · exact public law section
    (a) In General.— Section 282 of title 35, United States Code, is amended in the second undesignated paragraph by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following: “(3) Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit for failure to comply with— “(A) any requirement of section 112, except that the failure to disclose the best mode shall not be a basis on which any claim of a patent may be canceled or held invalid or otherwise unenforceable; or “(B) any requirement of section 251.” .

    Effective date note
    Amendment by section 15(a) of Pub. L. 112–29 effective on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to proceedings commenced on or after that date, see section 15(c) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 119 of this title. Amendment by section 20(g), (j) of Pub. L. 112–29 effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to proceedings commenced on or after that effective date, see section 20(l) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 2 of this title.

17 of 22 references resolved to an enrolled provision · 5 partial

Notes

Historical and Revision Notes

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).

The first paragraph declares the existing presumption of validity of patents.

The five defenses named in R.S. 4920 are omitted and replaced by a broader paragraph specifying defenses in general terms.

The third paragraph, relating to notice of prior patents, publications and uses, is based on part of the last paragraph of R.S. 4920 which was superseded by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but which is reinstated with modifications.

Editorial Notes

Amendments1965–2011 · 8 rounds

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, § 20(g)(2)(B), which directed substitution of “unenforceability.” for “uneforceability,” in par. (1) of former second par. which was designated subsec. (b), was executed by making the substitution for “unenforceability,”, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

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—

“(A) any requirement of section 112, except that the failure to disclose the best mode shall not be a basis on which any claim of a patent may be canceled or held invalid or otherwise unenforceable; or

“(B) any requirement of section 251.”

for “(3) Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit for failure to comply with any requirement of sections 112 or 251 of this title,”.

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.

Pub. L. 107–273, § 13206(b)(1)(B), made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4732(a)(10)(A)]. 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,”.

Pub. L. 106–113, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4402(b)(1)], as amended by Pub. L. 107–273, § 13206(b)(4), substituted “154(b) or 156 of this title” for “156 of this title”.

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.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date of 2011 Amendment

Amendment by section 15(a) of Pub. L. 112–29 effective on , and applicable to proceedings commenced on or after that date, see section 15(c) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 119 of this title.

Amendment by section 20(g), (j) of Pub. L. 112–29 effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on , and applicable to proceedings commenced on or after that effective date, see section 20(l) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 2 of this title.

Effective Date of 1999 Amendment

Amendment by section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4402(b)(1)] of Pub. L. 106–113 effective on date that is 6 months after , and, except for design patent application filed under chapter 16 of this title, applicable to any application filed on or after such date, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4405(a)] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as a note under section 154 of this title.

Amendment by section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4732(a)(10)(A)] of Pub. L. 106–113 effective 4 months after , see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4731] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.

Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective , see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Effective Date of 1975 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 94–131 effective , and applicable on and after that date to patent applications filed in the United States and to international applications, where applicable, see section 11 of Pub. L. 94–131, set out as an Effective Date note under section 351 of this title.

Effective Date of 1965 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 89–83 effective 3 months after , see section 7(a) of Pub. L. 89–83, set out as a note under section 41 of this title.

Credits

1952–2011 · 9 acts
  1. 1952July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 812
  2. 1965Pub. L. 89–83, § 10, , 79 Stat. 261
  3. 1975Pub. L. 94–131, § 10, , 89 Stat. 692
  4. 1982Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 161(7), , 96 Stat. 49
  5. 1984Pub. L. 98–417, title II, § 203, , 98 Stat. 1603
  6. 1995Pub. L. 104–41, § 2, , 109 Stat. 352
  7. 1999Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, §§ 4402(b)(1), 4732(a)(10)(A)], , 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–560, 1501A–582
  8. 2002Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, § 13206(b)(1)(B), (4), , 116 Stat. 1906
  9. 2011Pub. L. 112–29, §§ 15(a), 20(g), (j), , 125 Stat. 328, 334, 335.
Show as published

(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 812; Pub. L. 89–83, § 10, , 79 Stat. 261; Pub. L. 94–131, § 10, , 89 Stat. 692; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 161(7), , 96 Stat. 49; Pub. L. 98–417, title II, § 203, , 98 Stat. 1603; Pub. L. 104–41, § 2, , 109 Stat. 352; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, §§ 4402(b)(1), 4732(a)(10)(A)], , 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–560, 1501A–582; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, § 13206(b)(1)(B), (4), , 116 Stat. 1906; Pub. L. 112–29, §§ 15(a), 20(g), (j), , 125 Stat. 328, 334, 335.)

Parsed from the official OLRC USLM XML in data/usc_all/usc35.xml · release point 119-108 · OLRC build 2026-09-09

USLM identifier /us/usc/t35/s282