Patent Law Practice Center

False Marking: An In-House Attorney’s Perspective

I recently had an opportunity to discuss False Marking with Brandon Baum, partner and IP litigator at Mayer Brown LLP, (see “False Marking: A Patent Litigator’s Perspective“)  and Robert Faber, partner and patent prosecutor at Ostrolenk Faber LLP (see “False Marking: A Patent Prosecutor’s Perspective“).   It was interesting to see the varying opinion’s on the issue.  Today, you’ll have a chance to learn what Valerie Calloway‘s, in-house counsel at Polymer Group, Inc. and Patent Center Contributor, insight is on the issue of false marking.

When I caught up with Calloway, I asked her the same questions that I posed to both Baum and Faber.  Here is what she had to say…..

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

VC: I believe companies will pay closer attention to this issue.

Me:  Do you believe false marking necessarily causes injury?

VC:  In some cases yes and in some cases no. It depends on the situation. (more…)

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…)

Top 10 Patent Issues for Patent Practioners

I recently asked Thomas Creel, of Thomas L. Creel P.C., former patent law professor for 20 years at Columbia University Law School, that with all the latest developments in the patent community including the rebirth of patent reform, the recent court cases regarding what is patentable subject matter and the proposed changes in PTO procedures, what are the top 10 areas of interest for Patent  Practioners right now?  Here is what he had to say….

1.  Economy – There’s been a lot of talk about how the economy has and is changing the practice of law, particularly in private practice. For example, new billings methods have been proposed to replace the hourly billing traditional system. Have there been discernable economic and structural changes which have affected the patent practitioner, and how are they likely in the future to affect him or her?  For example, what is the future of the big boutique law firms (such as Finnegan, Henderson; Kenyon & Kenyon; Fitzpatrick, Cella, etc.) vs. the IP sections of large general firms?  How about large corporations- has the economy affected the filing of patent applications or the handling of litigation?  Another aspect of this might be what the average charge is for prosecution, litigation, licensing, etc. (more…)