Patent Law Practice Center

False Marking: A Patent Prosecutor’s Perspective

In a recent post titled, “False Marking: A Patent Litigator’s Perspective“, Brandon Baum, partner and IP litigator at Mayer Brown LLP, and I discussed the infamous issue of false marking and how he believes the proliferation of false marking suits are “a blip due to prior lax enforcement by patent departments, and will disappear quickly”.  Today, you’ll have a chance to read what Robert Faber, partner and patent prosecutor at Ostrolenk Faber LLP, has to say on the issue of false marking.

Without further ado, Robert Faber on False Marking….

Section 292 of the United States Patent Act (35 U.S.C. § 292) imposes a criminal penalty fine of up to $500 per false marking for falsely marking or advertising that a product is covered by an unexpired United States patent or an application for a patent, and the statute provides that whoever sues the false marking party for the penalty on behalf of the United States receives one half the penalty collected.

One reason for heightened interest in the statute is the recent Federal Circuit Court Opinion in Forest Group, Inc. V. Bon Tool Co., 590 F.3d 1295 (Fed Cir. 2009) that the penalty shall be computed based on every individual falsely marked article sold, not on a group of such articles sold in a single transaction. The penalty shall not be more than $500 for the offense of selling each copy, giving a judge discretion as to the per unit amount of the penalty and therefore the amount to be shared by the plaintiff.

(more…)

Attorneys’ Fees Under Section 285: A Double Standard in Patent Litigation

By Brandon Baum ( Partner at Mayer Brown LLP and Practice Center Contributor) and Jonathan Helfgott[i]

Under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (“§ 285”), “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award attorney fees to the prevailing party.”  Although the statutory language does not differentiate between prevailing plaintiffs and defendants, the Federal Circuit has developed substantially different standards for determining whether a case is “exceptional” depending on which party prevails.

In the context of a prevailing plaintiff, a court may find a case “exceptional” by showing that the defendant engaged in “willful infringement.” Minks v. Polaris Indus., 546 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (upholding exceptional case determination and award of attorneys’ fees based on jury finding of willful infringement).  “An express finding of willful infringement is a sufficient basis for classifying a case as ‘exceptional,’ and indeed, when a trial court denies attorney fees in spite of a finding of willful infringement, the court must explain why the case is not ‘exceptional’ within the meaning of the statute.”  Modine Mfg. Co. v. Allen Group, Inc., 917 F.2d 538, 543 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Maxcess Techs., Inc., 222 F.3d 958, 972 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (same).  To demonstrate willful infringement, the patentee must show “that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.” In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007).   As the Federal Circuit made clear in Seagate, this is an objective test under which an infringer may be found to have acted willfully when it knew or should have known of the risk. Id. (more…)

False Marking: A Patent Litigator’s Perspective

 

I recently read that on the heels of the Forest Group Inc. v. Bon Tool Co.,  decision more  than 100 plaintiffs have filed false marking suits in 2010.  I’m sure that is a scary statistic to the dozens of companies that are potentially facing false marking suits.  I had an opportunity to discuss the issue of false marking with two of our Patent Center Contributors, Brandon Baum, a partner and intellectual property litigator at Mayor Brown LLP and Robert C. Faber, partner and patent prosecutor at Ostrolenk Faber LLP.  While some of their viewpoints are similar, Baum and Faber both have a unique perspective on the topic.

Here is what Brandon Baum, the “patent litigator” , has to say on the issue…

Me: Do you think we’ll see companies begin to stop falsely marketing products in response to the suits? 

BB:  Yes, though the question presumes that companies are “falsely” marking (i.e., with intent to deceive) rather than inaccurately marking (i.e., without intent to deceive).  It will become a priority for companies’legal departments to monitor patent marking and, particularly with respect to expired patents, remove them from packaging. 

Me: Do you believe false marking necessarily causes injury?

BB:  As a general proposition, I think we would all agree that one should not mark a product as being covered by a patent when one knows it is not. I believe that Congress could reasonably believe that false marking causes injury, just like any other sort of false labeling of a product.  (more…)

USPTO Proposes Three-Track Patent Examination System

On June 4, 2010, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published in the Federal Register a detailed call for comments and the announcement of a public meeting to discuss it’s proposed Three-Track patent processing initiative. Federal Register/ Vol.75, No 71/Friday, June 4, 2010/ notes.  The public meeting will take place at the USPTO office on July 20, 2010.

Under the proposed initiative, for applications filed first in the United States, an applicant may: (1) Request prioritized examination (Track I); (2) for non-continuing applications, request  a delay lasting up to 30 months in docketing for examination (Track III); or (3) obtain processing under the current procedure (Track II) by not requesting either (1) or (2).  As for applications filed in the USPTO that are based on a prior foreign-filed application, the proposed process is quite different.

According to  Jack O’Brien, founder of Law Offices of John A. O’Brien P.C. and Practice Center Contributor,  “All applications filed first in the United States can freely participate this three track system.  However, US patent applications based on a prior foreign filed application are delayed.” (more…)