Posts Tagged: "false marking"

Seeking a writ of mandamus seems as if it is becoming a more popular avenue to pursue than it once might have been. A writ of mandamus essentially seeks an order from a higher court to direct a lower court to follow the law. They are extraordinary remedies because they come well before the case is over, which means that an ordinary appeal cannot be taken at that point; appeals are only typically allowed for final adjudications. Notwithstanding the extraordinary nature of a mandamus request, earlier today the Federal Circuit issued a writ of mandamus requiring a district court to dismiss a false marking lawsuit because the complaint did not contain allegations sufficient to allow the plaintiff to appeal. Essentially, even if each and everything in the complaint were believed the plaintiff could not possibly be entitled to a recovery. Kudos to the Federal Circuit for standing up and getting rid of a frivolous lawsuit initiated by an obviously defective complaint.

These so-called false marking cases arise from 35 USC § 292, and were given new life thanks to a Federal Circuit decision from December of 2009 — The Forest Group Inc. v. Bon Tool Co. — which quite correctly and quite literally interpreted § 292. As a result, large companies are getting sued every week, and recently Americans for Fair Patent Use sued Apple, Sprint, Verizon and Samsung in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that the companies are selling products that have expired patent numbers on them, making them the latest high profile targets of this new false marking patent troll. See AFPU v. Appel complaint. One source estimates that if successful the lawsuit could cost Apple alone a total of $60 billion.

In Perquignot v. Solo Cup Co., the stakes were truly mind-boggling: about $10.8 trillion in total. Approximately $5.4 trillion of that bounty would be the federal government’s share which the Federal Circuit characterized as “sufficient to pay back 42% of the country’s total national debt.” High stakes indeed! But unfortunately for the bounty hunter (Pequignot) in Perquignot, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court grant of summary judgment that there was no “deceptive intent” on the part of the patentee (Solo Cup), thus no approximately $5.4 trillion bounty was owed.

The day starts out quiet enough. I wake up and scoop my contacts out of the Clear Care® contact lens solution they’re swimming in. Blinking rapidly to settle my contacts, I focus on some tiny numbers printed on the contact solution box. Patent numbers. I’ve been using the solution for years and wonder how old the patents must be. I do a quick Google search and discover that the patents have expired. Strange that expired patents would be printed on the box… My 3 year old interrupts my thoughts as she walks up to me still rubbing her eyes, complaining that her Goodnite’s® Sleep Shorts are soggy. Knowing that absorbent products containing hydrogels with ability to swell against pressure don’t change themselves, I quickly get her some dry pants. Doing so, I check the box and sure enough, more expired patent numbers.

False marking is a statute in the Patent Act that imposes civil liability for intentionally marking a product as patented when it isn’t. We’ve all come across a product marked with the phrase, “This product is covered by U.S. Patent No. (fill in the blank).” Such marking puts the world on notice that the patent holder has exclusive rights to…