False Marking Case Update

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment of no liability for false marking in Pequignot v. Solo Cup.  I had previously discussed the district court proceedings in this case last year.

The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that marking a product with the patent number of an expired patent is false marking.  Thus, Solo Cup made a false statement when it marked its products with expired patent numbers.

To be liable under the statute, however, Pequignot also had to prove that Solo Cup falsely marked its products with intent to deceive the public.  The court held that “the combination of a false statement and knowledge that the statement was false creates a rebuttable presumption of intent to deceive the public.” 

The court reasoned that mere knowledge that the statement is false is not enough.  Instead, it must be proven that the false marking was done with the conscious desire to deceive the public.  Solo Cup provided enough evidence, such as advice from legal counsel, that it rebutted the presumption that it intended to deceive the public.  The Federal Circuit even held that Solo Cup’s markings that certain products “may be covered” by one or more of a long list of patents to be evidence of rebuttal that it did not intend to deceive the public.

A question that I have after this case is:  if using weasel language such as that a product “may be covered” by a huge list of patent numbers does not constitute false marking if the product is not in fact covered by some or all of the listed patents, how does such a listing comply with the marking statute’s notice requirement?  Is the court suggesting that it is the public’s duty to research each patent in a large list to determine which, if any, cover a particular product?  This seems to defeat the intent of the marking statute.

About these ads

3 Responses to “False Marking Case Update”

  1. Patent Reform in the Lame Duck Congress? « INVENTIVE STEP Says:

    [...] Similarly in 2010, Congress could not pass a budget prior to adjourning for the mid-term elections at the end of September.  A continuing resolution was passed to keep the government running until December 3.  Now, the lame duck Congress must pass a new budget.  Will it include Patent Reform?  Should it include Patent Reform without proper debate?  There seems to at least be sufficient support to put a stop to the false marking cases. [...]

  2. Patent Pending, Marking « INVENTIVE STEP Says:

    [...] recent years, there have been a number of cases involving allegations of false marking.  Under current law, anyone may bring a lawsuit that [...]

  3. Another Argument That the False Marking Statute is Unconstitutional « INVENTIVE STEP Says:

    [...] By Matt Osenga While patent owners wait for Congress to amend the false marking statute, plaintiffs continue to file cases seeking damages for falsely marked products, such as with patent numbers that do not cover the [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 59 other followers

%d bloggers like this: