Another Court Upholds Constitutionality of False Marking Statute

The court denied defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings that the false marking statute was unconstitutional. "[T]the government maintains a sufficient level of control over qui tam actions brought under Section 292(b). . . . [T]he law obliges the district-court clerk to apprise the Director of the PTO -- a member of the Executive Branch -- 'of an action under' Title 35 of the U.S. Code. 35 U.S.C. § 290. . . . A qui tam action for false marking arises under Title 35, and so the Court determines that, contrary to [defendant's] argument, the Executive Branch receives notice of qui tam false-marking claims."

Simonian v. Allergan, Inc., 1-10-cv-02414 (ILND April 28, 2011, Order) (St. Eve, J.)