Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on defendant's false marking counterclaim was denied where, although the court found the product was marked falsely, there was a factual dispute regarding intent. "[Plaintiff's product] is clearly distinct from what is covered in the [patent-in-suit]. Indeed, the [patent] bears no resemblance to the [product]. . . . [T]he [product] has no projections or recesses, which are clearly required by the [patent]. As such, there is a genuine dispute of a material fact as to whether [plaintiff] intentionally deceived the public into believing that the [product] was covered by the [patent-in-suit]."
Rally Manufacturing, Inc. v. Federal-Mogul Corporation, 1-10-cv-23791 (FLSD June 21, 2011 Order) (Moore, J.)