Monday, August 9, 2010

False Marking Plaintiff Lacks Standing Absent "Concrete, Particularized Injury" to United States

Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's qui tam false marking action for lack of standing was granted. "In the current action, Plaintiff fails to allege any cognizable injury to the United States or the public, much less adequate factual pleadings to support a concrete, particularized injury that is actual or imminent. Therefore, Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue the penalties imposed by Section 292."

Shizzle Pop, LLC v. Aviva Sports, Inc. et al., 2-10-cv-02574 (CACD August 5, 2010, Civil Minutes) (Klausner, J.)

The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's false marking action for lack of standing. "[Plaintiff's] position is that the mere fact that defendant affixes (allegedly) the mark of an expired patent to its products is sufficient to show an injury to the market or the public. The Court finds, however, that such generalized injury arising from a violation of the sovereign’s laws against false marking does not, without more, show an adequate 'concrete and actual or imminent' injury. Therefore, even if a sovereign interest for a violation of law were an assignable interest, this case does not present a concrete injury or a 'case or controversy' within the meaning of Article III, section 2."

United States of America, et. al. v. WHAM-O, Inc., 2-10-cv-00435 (PAWD August 3, 2010, Memorandum & Opinion) (Schwab, J.)

No comments: