False Patent Marks Can Add Up to Big Fines
Federal Circuit decision overturns century-long ruling.
February 28, 2010 at 07:00 PM
5 minute read
A little known statute has become a big headache for patent owners, thanks to a recent . Forest Group Inc. v. Bon Tool Co. held that if a company falsely marks a product as patented, it can be slapped with fines of up to $500 per wrongly marked item. That can add up to a hefty amount if a company produces mass market products–such as razor blades–that happen to list an expired patent number.
The December 2009 Federal Circuit decision overturns a century of judicial rulings that imposed much lower fines for violations of the false marking statute, 35 U.S.C. ? 292. Under a line of cases stretching back to the 1st Circuit's 1910 decision, London v. Everett H. Dunbar Corp., the courts ruled that each incorrectly marked product did not constitute a separate violation of the false marking statute. Instead, a continuous false marking–such as the entire production run of a product–amounted to a single offense.
Because Forest Group greatly boosted the fines for violating the false marking statute, and because half the fines in a successful suit go to the party that brought the qui tam action to enforce the statute, many experts expect the decision to provoke a sharp rise in the number of false marking suits.
“The fear is that the case might breed a new breed of plaintiffs who don't care about the patent system or patent marking; they are just looking to bring lawsuits for damages or to shake down companies,” says Paul Ackerman, a partner at Dorsey & Whitney.
A little known statute has become a big headache for patent owners, thanks to a recent . Forest Group Inc. v. Bon Tool Co. held that if a company falsely marks a product as patented, it can be slapped with fines of up to $500 per wrongly marked item. That can add up to a hefty amount if a company produces mass market products–such as razor blades–that happen to list an expired patent number.
The December 2009 Federal Circuit decision overturns a century of judicial rulings that imposed much lower fines for violations of the false marking statute, 35 U.S.C. ? 292. Under a line of cases stretching back to the 1st Circuit's 1910 decision, London v. Everett H. Dunbar Corp., the courts ruled that each incorrectly marked product did not constitute a separate violation of the false marking statute. Instead, a continuous false marking–such as the entire production run of a product–amounted to a single offense.
Because Forest Group greatly boosted the fines for violating the false marking statute, and because half the fines in a successful suit go to the party that brought the qui tam action to enforce the statute, many experts expect the decision to provoke a sharp rise in the number of false marking suits.
“The fear is that the case might breed a new breed of plaintiffs who don't care about the patent system or patent marking; they are just looking to bring lawsuits for damages or to shake down companies,” says Paul Ackerman, a partner at
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Rocket Docket': EDVA Judge Controls Google's Fate in Ad Tech Monopoly Trial
4 minute readTarget's Don Liu: 4 Fortune 500 GC Posts, a Singular Focus on Opening Doors for Asian Americans
9 minute read'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 5A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250