This matter comes before the court as an action to permanently enjoin certain acts as threatened infringement of a patent. Suit was originally filed in U.S. District Court in New Jersey pursuant to 35 U.S.C. $$271 and 283, and under the grant of jurisdiction provided in 28 U.S. C. $1338. After District Judge H. Lee Sarokin issued a temporary restraining order on September 2, 1983, defendant was granted a change of venue pursuant to 28 U.S.c. $1406(a). District Judge Debevoise transferred venue to the Eastern District of New York for a hearing on the preliminary injunction, which was scheduled for October 5, 1983. At that time plaintiff moved to consolidate the hearing with a trial on the merits pursuant to Rule 65 (a)(2) Fed. R. Civ. P. Defendant did not oppose and the court ordered the hearing consolidated with a trial on the merits. Plaintiff Roche Products, Inc. (Roche) holds patent number 3,299,053 for flurazepam hydrochloride (flurazepam hcl). That compound is the active ingredient in a prescription sleeping pill manufactured by plaintiff under the brand name DALMANE. Plaintiff's seventeen year patent expires on January 17, 1984. Bolar Pharmaceutical Company (Bolar) is a generic drug company that duplicates drugs no longer under patent and sells the compounds to wholesale distributors. Bolar is in possession of five kilograms of flurazepam hcl, which it imported from a foreign manufacturer not subject to United States patent law. Plaintiff-seeks to permanently enjoin defendant from performing required FDA experiments with the drug during the term of the patent. There are no disputed facts in this case. There is no argument that the patent is for a pioneer invention and is valid and in force. Plaintiff's sales of DALMANE are in excess of $40,000,000 annually. There is no contention that Bolar will manufacture or sell flurazepam hcl before the patent expires, nor is it contended that Roche has authorized Bolar to make, use Or sell the drug. Defendant acknowledges that it is in possession of five kilograms of imported flurazepam hal and freely admits that it intends to form the compound into capsules and commence the testing and experiments necessary for a New Drug Application to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before the January 17, 1984 expiration date of the patent. Title 35 U.S.c. $271(a) provides in pertinent part: [W]hoever without authority makes, uses or sells Plaintiff argues that putting the drug through the FDA required testing and experimentation before the patent expires constitutes infringement under section 271(a), even if there is no intent to make, sell or otherwise realize a monetary gain until after January 17, 1984. Roche asserts that such action constitutes a use prohibited by the law. Bolar concedes that its tests do not fall under the infringement exception known as experimentation for philosophical, amusement, or curiosity purposes. It maintains that its testing does not constitute infringement use because it is de minimis, it does not by its nature infringe and no commercial value or profit will be realized before the patent on the drug expires. The defendant characertizes its activity as limited pre-expiration preparation for post-expiration entry into the market. The question before the court is a very narrow one: does the limited use of a patented drug for experiments strictly related to FDA drug approval requirements during the last six months of the term of the patent constitute use prohibited by 35 U.S.C. $271(a)? The court holds that it does not. The An underlying issue in this case is the procedure for getting FDA approval, without which a drug cannot be marketed. Bolar asserts that it will take two years to amass required data and obtain approval, in effect delaying entry into the market and exending the patent de facto for the same period. Roche claims that it is entitled to that delay in competition, but can point to no legal support. It can only be observed that patent protection is contained in a single, general body of law meant to apply to inventions of every sort, not only drug compounds. protection is for a seventeen year fixed term and the marketing delaying regulations of the FDA could hardly be considered a part of the monopoly benefits Congress sought to bestow. See 35 U.S.C. $154. Viewed from this vantage, what is at stake is a post-expiration competitive benefit for Bolar at Roche's expease. The plaintiff urges the adoption of the reasoning and holding of the recent case of Pfizer, Inc. V. Rectifier Corp., 217 U.S.P.Q. 157 (C.D. Calif. 1982). There the district court in California had issued a 1980 injunction against defendant's activities as infringement of plaintiff's drug patent. Before that court were two years of post-injunction product testing and development involving at least 400 kilograms of the drug and apparently profitable overseas manufacture and sale. The defendant in Pfizer was clearly doing more, for a longer period of time than Bolar intends to do here. More significantly, in Pfizer the defendant was reaping commercial value in defiance of a court injunction. The substantial and long term acts in violation of an injunction present in Pfizer are not present in the case at bar. Consequently, this court International declines to make a wholesale adoption of the California court's reasoning and holding. The Pfizer court, although it draws on the analysis and reasoning of cases from all the circuits, is bound by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' reading of the law, which strictly limits the experimental use exception to purposes of amusement and philosophical gratification. Spray Refrigeration Co. v. Sea Spray Fishing, Inc., 322 F.2d 34 (9th Cir. 1963). This court, of course, is not bound by the Ninth Circuit, and although plaintiff advocates their analysis, the court instead turns to the line of reasoning followed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Bolar's experimentation cannot be classified as merely for amusement or philosophical gratification. At the same time, it cannot be connected with any act of competition or profit during the term of the patent in either domestic or foreign-markets Its experimentation is commerical preparation of a nonproduction nature for post-expiration competition. In analagous cases this has been held a non-infringing use. In Arko Agate v. Master Marble Co., 18 F. Supp. 305 (N.D.W.Va. 1937), the experimentation with a marble manufacturing device covered by plaintiff's patent prior to going into production was held not an infringing use. The use of the apparatus was clearly a commercial test, yet in the absence of any profit from the activity, the court found no infringement. Similarly, in Dugan v. Lear Avia, Inc., 55 F. Supp. 223 (S.D.N.Y. 1944), aff'd 156 F.2d 29 (2d Cir. 1946), building and commercial testing of a device without commercial |