This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
JURISDICTION REPORT: US—PATENTS


AVOID FALSE PATENT MARKING PITFALLS Paul J. Sutton


Sutton Magidoff LLP


False marking: While marking a product with a patent number entitles a US patent owner under 35 USC §287 to seek damages for infringement without giving actual notice of the patent, incorrect or false patent marking will expose a patentee to significant liability. False patent marking has become an increasingly popular ‘bounty hunting’ basis for US litigation. Te targets of such false lawsuits face huge legal fees and potentially huge monetary judgments. Manufacturers, facing fines of as much as $500 for every offence of false patent marking, are wisely becoming more diligent than ever in confirming the propriety of the patent numbers marked on products.


Benefits of patent marking: It is highly desirable for a patentee to be able to recover damages for past infringements. Tis is especially so where infringement has occurred prior to its discovery by the patentee. Months or years of undetected infringing sales can yield recovery of significant damages. It is for this reason that patentees who market a patented product will take advantage of the patent marking provisions of 35 USC §287, by properly marking each patented product with the appropriate patent number. Where marking of the product itself is not possible (such as for very small products), the packaging may be marked with the patent number. Shipment of a product marked with the correct patent number will trigger a patentee’s ability to recover damages thereaſter, even from much later detected infringements. With US legal costs associated with patent enforcement being as high as they are, every dollar in damages recovered is helpful.


Recent court decisions: Te Federal Circuit on August 31, 2010 reversed a district court dismissal of a false marking case, in which the venerable clothier Brooks Brothers was the target of a qui tam lawsuit brought under 35 USC §292 by a pro se patent attorney, Raymond Stauffer. Te suit claimed a deceptive practice of marking bow ties with patents that had expired more than 50 years previously. Te plaintiff asked for a $500 penalty per bow tie sold. Te Stauffer Federal Circuit decision is significant in that the court found that Mr Stauffer had standing to sue under Section 292 as a qui tam plaintiff. Qui tam actions are those brought under a statute that allows a private person to sue for a penalty, part of which the government or some specified public institution will receive. If ultimately successful, a qui tam plaintiff may share in penalties awarded.


False patent marking liability requires proof of ‘intent’ to deceive. Te Federal Circuit on June 10, 2010 affirmed a district court summary judgment in favour of defendant Solo Cup Co, which had received a patent covering its lids for cups and which had embedded the patent number in the molds for making the cup lids. Aſter the patent expired, Solo did not alter the


“ FALSE PATENT MARKING HAS BECOME AN INCREASINGLY POPULAR ‘BOUNTY HUNTING’ BASIS FOR US LITIGATION. THE TARGETS OF SUCH FALSE LAWSUITS FACE HUGE LEGAL FEES AND POTENTIALLY HUGE MONETARY JUDGMENTS.”


molds, whose manufacturing life extended beyond the expiration date of the patent. However, while Solo indeed continued to mark its ‘unpatented article’ cup lids with the expired patent number, it was able to rebut the presumption of an intent to deceive, based upon an opinion of legal counsel that it had relied upon. Te Federal Circuit held that Solo’s conduct was based not upon an intent to deceive, but legal advice that encouraged the company to reduce costs and business disruption.


District courts have seen a marked rise in false patent marking lawsuits being filed, with some 175 new cases filed in the third quarter of 2010 alone, according to Public Access to Court Electronic Records. None were filed during the same period last year. On March 1, 2010, it was reported in Mayer Brown, Legal Update-Intellectual Property that in the previous week, more than 20 new false patent marking lawsuits were filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs are encouraged by the Federal Circuit’s 2009 decision in Te Forest Group, Inc v. Bon Tool Co, in which the court imposed a fine on a per article basis, as opposed to a per marking decision basis.


Conclusion: Simple precautions, including seeking the benefit of experienced IP counselling, will enable patentees to avoid the false patent marking pitfall. Development of a sound patent marking policy will reduce or eliminate such liability.


Paul J. Sutton is a founding partner of Sutton Magidoff LLP. He can be contacted at: paul@suttonmagidoff.com


98 World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2010 www.worldipreview.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108