Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> ISinIP
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Intellectual Property Law
: ISinIPBack when I was losing on False Patent Marking.
By thomason
Proof of objective facts and subjective intent are essential to success on a false patent marking claim (as well as on the inequitable conduct defense). Showing that ‘patented’ was in some form marked on a product should not be hard. In all ‘false’ conduct actions, the most difficult aspect is proving intent.
In a case some years past, the Judge issued fairly straightforward rulings that “intent” raised fact questions precluding summary judgment on a false patent marking claim. The court noted that the product was promoted as “patented” before an application had been filed, and that notice of the misidentification was received, also before the patent application was filed. The one promoting it may have believed it was patented. http://bit.ly/aZ8zWA http://bit.ly/awa5fK
Seemed plain - accepting favorably an inference of ‘good faith’ despite a mistaken belief that the product was “patented.” This did not spawn hordes of mismarking cases, and intent should remain difficult to prove.
Full post as published by ISinIP on April 01, 2010 (boomark / email).
Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 41 (False Marking, Etc.)
Tracking Appeals: There is an interesting new patent litigation blog: Patent Appeal Tracker run by Kyle Fleming and Josh Ryland. They are providing a review of various pre-decision appeals...
False Marking False Marking False Marking False Marking all at up to $500 per offense
Simonian v. Blistex, Ciba, Pfizer, 3M, Edgecraft, Darex, Cisco, Bunn-O-Matic, Oreck, Novartis, Merck, etc. (N.D. Ill. 2010) Thomas Simonian is a self-described "individual living in Geneva, Illinois...
False Marking and Patent Reform
Marking Products as Patented: Many manufacturers mark their products as patented by listing the associated patent number on the product or its packaging. The marking serves as constructive notice to potential infringers -- allowing a patentee to collect damages for...
False Marking: Lobbying against the Senate Bill
A battle over the false marking statute is rising. The currently pending patent reform bill (S.515) would severely weaken the cause of action. In a recent press release, the Public Patent Foundation (PubPat) has argued that the statute ?would eliminate...
Patent Marking - Court Cautions Against Marking Product if Patent is Expired
In the United States and many other countries, it’s common to mark patented products with the patent number. Although marking is not required, it’s beneficial because marking serves as constructive notice to the world that the product is patented...
False Marking: Calculating Damages Part I
The Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co. (Fed. Cir. 2009). The false marking statute provides for a fine of "not more than $500 for every ? offense." 35 U.S.C. 292. Past cases have severely limited the false-marking damage award...
Zantac Patent
GlaxoSmithKline and Cypress Pharmaceutical settle patent infringement dispute.
Soliris Patent
Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. agrees to pay the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation a $10 million patent infringement settlement.
DRAM Patent
ProMOS Technologies and Mosel Vitelic pay MOSAID Technologies an undisclosed patent infringement settlement.
Chattanooga, TN
Seven months in back pay resolves pepper spray dispute.
False Claims
Attorney Robert Arledge ordered to pay $5.8 million after making false Fen Phen settlement claims.
Deja Vu
Exotic Dancers file class action claiming back wages








