IP: Avoid mistakes and save money by simplifying your patent marking program
Patent owners spend thousands of dollars to obtain patents on innovations.
June 25, 2013 at 08:57 AM
9 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Patent owners spend thousands of dollars to obtain patents on innovations. Yet many—large companies in particular—often devalue that investment by making mistakes with the marking of their commercial products with appropriate patent numbers. Patent owners who do not properly mark their products may limit the amount of damages they recover from competitors who steal their ideas.
The current patent law allows a patent owner to recover damages for patent infringement occurring prior to the filing of a lawsuit in two circumstances. First, where the patent owner notifies the infringer, in which case the patent owner's ability to obtain damages begins with the date of actual notice. Providing actual notice can cause concerns though if the patent owner is not prepared to initiate immediate litigation due to lack of resources or other business reasons. When threatened with the notice, the infringer can actually drag the patent owner into litigation with a declaratory judgment action of non-infringement or patent invalidity. Also, the risk of equitable estoppel surfaces if the patent owner delays enforcing it rights during which time the infringer acts, because the infringer believes it will not be sued. Thus, equitable estoppel can prevent a patent owner from enforcing its patent rights.
The second way to start the patent infringement damages clock is to provide constructive notice. This is done by substantially marking all of the patent owner's (and any licensee's) commercial products with the numbers of the patents covering the products. For large companies that have many products and patents, the practice of patent marking can be expensive and has its pitfalls. If the patented products are not substantially marked with the proper patent numbers, the desired constructive notice may be deemed ineffective.
It is common that several patents will cover a particular commercial product. These patents issue at different times. The company incurs expenses, sometimes significant ones, each time the patent marking requires updating.
For example, for injection molded plastic products, the steel injection molds that make plastic parts would require modification each time a new patent issues covering the product. Sometimes adhesive-backed labels or stickers identifying the patent numbers are placed on the products. It is still expensive and can cause quite a headache to revise these each time a new patent issues. Also, for products like certain medical devices, the adhesive-backed label or sticker cannot be used due to sterility reasons. Then, the product packaging might be marked. But marking the packaging, instead of the product itself, raises questions of whether that practice complies with the patent marking statute. If there are many product codes for a product line, the probability rises that mistakes will be made in that some later-developed product codes may not be marked. Sometimes, miscommunications between those knowledgeable of the company's patents and those involved in the manufacturing process result in some patent markings being missed. In addition to this example, there are a host of other reasons why marking a product itself with the right patent number sometimes falls short of a company's intentions.
The recent America Invents Act allows patent owners to patent mark their products in an easier manner. It is called “virtual marking.” Virtual marking is accomplished by placing the word “patent” or “pat.” together with an Internet address on the patented product. The Internet address must associate the patented product with the applicable patent numbers, and must also be accessible to the public free of charge.
I would suggest placing on all products or labels (if the products themselves do not have room), whether patented or not, the phrase “Patents: www.yourcompanyname.com/patents.” This page on your website should list your company's products and the patents associated with those products. It should also include some language similar to the following: “[Company name] is marking the products specifically identified on this website pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) by associating each identified product with one or more patents that cover that product. If a product is not specifically identified on this website, it is not currently being so marked.” Those words should make it extremely clear to your competitors which products and ideas to steer clear of at the risk of litigation.
This virtual marking plan eliminates confusion at the manufacturing stage and reduces expensive changes in tooling or labeling as new patents issue or old patents expire. Regardless of future changes in the manufacturing process or labeling development, no patent marking updates will ever need to be made to the actual product packaging, whether patented or not, under this plan. The final notice of whether a patent actually covers a product is made on the website. Thus, in-house counsel have a very inexpensive and easy marking process that is reliable and gives them full control of associating the patent number with the correct products on the website.
Patent owners spend thousands of dollars to obtain patents on innovations. Yet many—large companies in particular—often devalue that investment by making mistakes with the marking of their commercial products with appropriate patent numbers. Patent owners who do not properly mark their products may limit the amount of damages they recover from competitors who steal their ideas.
The current patent law allows a patent owner to recover damages for patent infringement occurring prior to the filing of a lawsuit in two circumstances. First, where the patent owner notifies the infringer, in which case the patent owner's ability to obtain damages begins with the date of actual notice. Providing actual notice can cause concerns though if the patent owner is not prepared to initiate immediate litigation due to lack of resources or other business reasons. When threatened with the notice, the infringer can actually drag the patent owner into litigation with a declaratory judgment action of non-infringement or patent invalidity. Also, the risk of equitable estoppel surfaces if the patent owner delays enforcing it rights during which time the infringer acts, because the infringer believes it will not be sued. Thus, equitable estoppel can prevent a patent owner from enforcing its patent rights.
The second way to start the patent infringement damages clock is to provide constructive notice. This is done by substantially marking all of the patent owner's (and any licensee's) commercial products with the numbers of the patents covering the products. For large companies that have many products and patents, the practice of patent marking can be expensive and has its pitfalls. If the patented products are not substantially marked with the proper patent numbers, the desired constructive notice may be deemed ineffective.
It is common that several patents will cover a particular commercial product. These patents issue at different times. The company incurs expenses, sometimes significant ones, each time the patent marking requires updating.
For example, for injection molded plastic products, the steel injection molds that make plastic parts would require modification each time a new patent issues covering the product. Sometimes adhesive-backed labels or stickers identifying the patent numbers are placed on the products. It is still expensive and can cause quite a headache to revise these each time a new patent issues. Also, for products like certain medical devices, the adhesive-backed label or sticker cannot be used due to sterility reasons. Then, the product packaging might be marked. But marking the packaging, instead of the product itself, raises questions of whether that practice complies with the patent marking statute. If there are many product codes for a product line, the probability rises that mistakes will be made in that some later-developed product codes may not be marked. Sometimes, miscommunications between those knowledgeable of the company's patents and those involved in the manufacturing process result in some patent markings being missed. In addition to this example, there are a host of other reasons why marking a product itself with the right patent number sometimes falls short of a company's intentions.
The recent America Invents Act allows patent owners to patent mark their products in an easier manner. It is called “virtual marking.” Virtual marking is accomplished by placing the word “patent” or “pat.” together with an Internet address on the patented product. The Internet address must associate the patented product with the applicable patent numbers, and must also be accessible to the public free of charge.
I would suggest placing on all products or labels (if the products themselves do not have room), whether patented or not, the phrase “Patents: www.yourcompanyname.com/patents.” This page on your website should list your company's products and the patents associated with those products. It should also include some language similar to the following: “[Company name] is marking the products specifically identified on this website pursuant to
This virtual marking plan eliminates confusion at the manufacturing stage and reduces expensive changes in tooling or labeling as new patents issue or old patents expire. Regardless of future changes in the manufacturing process or labeling development, no patent marking updates will ever need to be made to the actual product packaging, whether patented or not, under this plan. The final notice of whether a patent actually covers a product is made on the website. Thus, in-house counsel have a very inexpensive and easy marking process that is reliable and gives them full control of associating the patent number with the correct products on the website.
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
© 2025 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 AllAmex Latest Target as Regulators Scrutinize Whether Credit Card Issuers Deliver on Rewards Promises
Wells Fargo and Bank of America Agree to Pay Combined $60 Million to Settle SEC Probe
‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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