Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law; and William S. Thompson, President, American Intellectual Property Law Association); see also Jacobs Wind, 919 F.2d at 728, 16 USPQ2d at 1973 (affirming the dismissal of an infringement claim against the state as barred by the Eleventh Amendment'because Congress failed to enunciate clearly in the text of the patent laws that it intended to abrogate the sovereign immunity of states); Chew, 893 F.2d at 332-33, 13 USPQ2d at 1394 (same); Watts v. University of Del., 622 F.2d 47, 53, 206 USPQ 106, 112 (3d Cir.1980) (involving an infringement action against an arm of the State of Delaware); Lemelson v. Ampex Corp., 372 F.Supp. 708, 711-12, 181 USPQ 313, 314-15 (N.D.Ill.1974) (denying a motion to dismiss a claim a C.N.D.Ohio 1887) (<HOLDING>). In addition, the legislative history reflects
holding a nonparty to a patent infringement suit who funded an unsuccessful challenge to a patent could not file a subsequent lawsuit again challenging the patent holding that an ohio municipal court could not be sued under  1983 because it was not a person as  1983 uses that term holding that ohio counties could be sued for patent infringement holding in a patent infringement case that plaintiff lacked standing where it held a conditional right to license a patent and enforce license agreements but did not have the right to transfer the patent holding that knowledge of the patent is required for willful infringement