for perfecting the ability of the object to perform its intended use ..., [which] simply d[id] not fall within any fair usage of the term ‘manufacture.’ ” Id. at 222. To hold otherwise, as the court observed, would “obliterate[ ] the distinction in § 1498 between ‘use’ and ‘manufacture.’ ” Id. Although there are factual differences between the status and condition of LCS-3 at issue in this case and the accused products in Deepsouth, Paper Converting, and Hughes Aircraft, the legal principles pertinent to those prior decisions still apply. See, e.g., East Coast Sheet Metal Fabricating Corp. v. Autodesk, Inc., No. 12-CV-517-LM, 2015 WL 226084, at *15 (D.N.H. Jan. 15, 2015), amended in part, No. 12-CV-517-LM, 2015 WL 925614 (D.N.H. Mar. 3, 2015), appeal pending, No. 15-1717 (Fed. Cir.) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the court finds it appropriate
holding district court erred in relying on authority other than that of the supreme court of the united states in its analysis under  2254d recognizing the distinct factual situation in deepsouth but relying on the general principles of patent law applied by the supreme court in that decision recognizing  1498 is based on principles related to the taking of property namely a patent license holding that  1338a jurisdiction inures when a complaint establishes that federal patent law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law in that patent law is a necessary element of one of the wellpleaded claims 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