News Article

False Patent Markings and the onslaught of lawsuits related to them are all the rage in patent circles these days.  At the heart is a 100-year-old statute that allows any member of the public to seek damages for products incorrectly marked with patent information, if the mismarking was "for the purpose of deceiving the public." The statute sets the fine at up to $500 per mismarking "offense".   Womble Carlyle attorneys James Lennon and Bill Ragland launched the newly created False Patent Marking blog to highlight judicial and legislative developments on the law of patent marking, in particular, the “false patent marking” statute (35 USC 292).

 

“We look at news stories, court decisions and proposed legislation that impact companies marking their products, packaging and advertisements with U.S. patent information,” said Lennon, a patent attorney in the firm’s Delaware office. “We also examine litigation trends and legal underpinnings of the current qui tam false patent marking statute, primarily from a defense perspective.”

 

Given a federal judge’s recent ruling that it’s unconstitutional to allow plaintiffs to sue companies for labeling products with expired patent numbers, False Patent Marking blog readers can expect many plot twists and turns in related cases for the foreseeable future.

 

Attorneys from the firm’s Intellectual Property team will also contribute to the False Patent Marking blog. Please check in often, as the team will be posting regular updates.

Womble Carlyle Blogs