Recent Uproar around False Patent Marking  

POSTED BY Kate Shore and Sarju Bharucha AT 10:25 A.M. APRIL 2, 2010

Return to ipCG BlogSM | ipCG Home | Contact Us

False patent marking has become a hot topic in the business world recently. Case law around patent marking on products and recent legal developments have created a lucrative opportunity with very low barriers to entry. More than 100 cases have been filed so far in 2010, targeting industry leaders such as 3M, Cisco, L'Oreal, Merck, and Pella. New cases are being filed daily. Below, we walk through the background of the patent marking, factors behind the recent increase in risk, and suggest how your company might respond.

The recent increase in activity has been around false marking where products are marked with patents that have expired (therefore unenforceable). This type of false marking is easily detected and does not require technical know-how or claim interpretation.

As of late, recent case law has further defined the penalties that may be imposed in these types of suits. For example, in Forest Group v. Bon Tool, Bon Tool, an equipment reseller, was sued by its supplier Forest Group for infringement of a patent and false marking related to stilts used by construction workers. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the finding of a single offense was erroneous. The Court construed the law stating that a plaintiff may collect (a) up to $500 (b) for each falsely marked product distributed.

Layman's takeaway: This decision set the precedent for penalties due to falsely marking products to be as much as $500 for each falsely marked product that is distributed, opening the door to a potentially very large monetary judgment in these cases.

With the lure of a handsome judgment, these qui tam actions are being brought by members of the public such as patent attorneys and businesses that have scoured the shelves looking for falsely marked patents or patents that have expired. Some of these individual plaintiffs (e.g. Thomas Simonian, David O'Neill) are being represented by the three same law firms (Vanek, Vickers & Masini; Sperling & Slater; and Eugene M. Cummings) and have brought over 30 suits against major consumer product companies, asserting that the manufacturers are marking their products with now-expired patents.

Some of the companies behind these suits are Accord Patents, LLC; O & G SearchQuest; Perfection Product Management, LLC; Patent Compliance Group, Inc.; and Heathcote Holdings Corp, Inc. (just to name a few). It is very likely that many of these companies have recently been formed just to pursue this type of litigation. For example, Perfection Product Management, LLC is a recently formed Ohio company (as of 02/26/2010) that has filed against companies that create tool equipment (Stanley Tools, Allway Tools, Homer TLC) just in the last two months. Other companies have been formed by patent attorneys such as Paul M. Hletko who started Heathcote Holdings Corp. Heathcote has pursued companies such as Crayola, Leapfrog Enterprises, Phillips Screw Company, and P&G in the last two months.

As mentioned above, most of the companies being pursued are consumer product companies that have products on the shelf, although no particular industry appears to be immune to these types of suits. To date, the targeted entities have tended to be large-scale producers of high-volume goods, but there is as yet no indication how far these activities will extend. Law suits have been brought against companies producing contact lenses such as Bausch & Lomb to companies that manufacture windows such as Pella. A current, more detailed list of companies being targeted can be viewed here.

TAGS: Kate Shore | Regulation and Legislation | Sarju Bharucha | Strategy
Real Time Web Analytics