use occurs within the territorial United States, because literally every product or device is non-infringing outside of the United States. See Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 711 F.3d 1348, 1371 (Fed.Cir.2013) (“It is axiomatic that U.S. patent law does not operate extraterritorially to prohibit infringement abroad”). Defendants also argue that certain samples or “versions” of its films do not infringe Kaneka’s patents, and therefore, its film is capable of “non-infringing uses.” (Defendants’ Reply at 2.) This argument also fails. “Non-infringing use” specifically contemplates a situation where a single product can be used in multiple ways. See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 932, 125 S.Ct. 2764, 162 L.Ed.2d 781 (2005) (<HOLDING>); see also Hilgraeve Corp. v. Symantec Corp.,
recognizing patent laws traditional staple article of commerce doctrine now codified in 35 usc  271c holds that distribution of a component of a patented device will not violate the patent if it is suitable for use in other ways holding patent policy incorporated by reference into patent agreement holding action did not arise under the patent laws 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 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