Association For Molecular Pathology et al v. United States Patent and Trademark Office et al., 1-09-cv-04515 (NYSD March 29, 2010, Opinion) (Sweet, J.)
Judge Burke issues claim construction opinion
13 hours ago
The court denies a motion to dismiss in Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co., 540 F. Supp. 2d 649 (E.D. Va. 2008), concluding that marking with expired patent numbers may constitute false marking and the use of permissive language (“may be covered”) in the marking does not create a safe harbor.December 28, 2009
The Federal Circuit issues an opinion in Forest Group Inc. v. Bon Tool Co., 590 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2009), holding that the $500 penalty for falsely marking a product under 35 U.S.C. § 292 applies to each article so marked.As shown in the chart below, the twenty months following the Solo Cup decision saw a modest increase in the number of false marking cases. Yet even though Solo Cup opened the door for expired patent cases, it prompted only 13 new filings of that type. In fact, during that same period of time, false marking cases based on allegations that the marked product did not fall within the scope of the patent (“patent scope cases”) outnumbered expired patent cases 19 to 13.
"When a product is marked with an expired patent number, any person with basic knowledge of the patent system can look up the patent and determine its expiration date, reducing the potential for being deceived."