False Marking Statute Decision: Fine is for Falsely Marking Articles with a Patent Number on a Per Article Basis
January 5, 2010
On December 28, 2009, the Federal Circuit finally construed the statutory fine for falsely marking an unpatented article with a U.S. Patent Number under 35 U.S.C. 292 (False Marking). In particular, the Federal Circuit found that a party that falsely marks a product as “patent pending” or having a patent shall be liable up to $500 per each article manufactured. As indicated in the Federal Circuit’s decision (see below), the court has the discretion of as to the amount of the penalty which could be “a fraction of a penny per article” for mass-produced articles. 35 U.S.C. 292 states the following:
35 U.S.C. 292 False Marking.
(a) Whoever, without the consent of the patentee, marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with anything made, used, offered for sale, or sold by such person within the United States, or imported by the person into the United States, the name or any imitation of the name of the patentee, the patent number, or the words "patent," "patentee," or the like, with the intent of counterfeiting or imitating the mark of the patentee, or of deceiving the public and inducing them to believe that the thing was made, offered for sale, sold, or imported into the United States by or with the consent of the patentee; or Whoever marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with any unpatented article the word "patent" or any word or number importing the same is patented, for the purpose of deceiving the public; or Whoever marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with any article the words "patent applied for," "patent pending," or any word importing that an application for patent has been made, when no application for patent has been made, or if made, is not pending, for the purpose of deceiving the public – Shall be fined not more than $500 for every such offense.
(b) Any person may sue for the penalty, in which event one-half shall go to the person suing and the other to the use of the United States.
See Court Decision: Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co. 2009-1044 (Patent False Marking Case)
International Patents
December 27, 2009
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as an “international patent.” However, there are some very good options when seeing international patent protection such as the PCT international patent application and the EPO patent application. We have posted a new page on International Patents which discusses your foreign filing options.
Invention Timeline
December 25, 2009
Many inventors ask us what the “invention timeline” is. The invention process has several steps that inventors typically follow. We have posted an Inventions Timeline to help inventors on the Neustel Law Offices website (www.patent-ideas.com).
How to Protect Your Trade Secrets – Inc.com Article
December 12, 2009
Inc.com has a good article titled How to Protect Your Trade Secrets. Whether you are an inventor seeking to license your patent rights to a company or a business attempting to protect your valuable manufacturing trade secrets, you will find valuable information in this article to help you.
The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office announced a pilot program to accelerate the patent examination of “green” technology patent applications. The intention of the pilot program is to accelerate the development and deployment of green technology. It is expected that the patent applications entered into the pilot program will be examined approximately one year earlier. It currently takes approximately 30 months for a first office action and approximately 40 months for a final decision on green technology patent applications.
You can read the USPTO Press Release on Accelerating Green Technology Patent Applications.
On November 24, 2009, Google was awarded U.S. Patent No. 7,624,101 titled “Enhanced Search Results.” This patent is for the Google search technology you see today when searching for a business where the results includes a phone number, address and a map for the business. Below is the Abstract and Figure 1 from the patent.
A method includes receiving a search query from a user and generating search results based on the search query. The method may also include providing the search results and information identifYing at least one ofa telephone number or an address associated with a first one of the search results to the user. The method may further include providing a link to a map associated with at least the first search result to the user.
Google Local Search Patent – Figure 1
DOCUMENT: U.S. Patent No. 7,624,101
Google Scholar Released – Free Online Legal Research Tool
November 30, 2009
Google just released a beta version of Google Scholar (scholar.google.com) which allows for free legal research (full text) of legal opinions in both state and federal courts. My initial usage of this legal research tool is very positive – the typical fast and good searches you would expect from Google.
Krippelz v. Ford Motor Company, 2009 WL 3852466 (N.D.IL).
On November 18, 2009, Ford Motor was ordered to pay $55.7 million to an inventor (Jake Krippelz). Back in December 2008, a Federal jury awarded the inventor $23 million in a patent infringement lawsuit against Ford Motor. The inventor’s patent covered an automotive lighting system used in exterior rear view mirrors and was issued in 1991 (U.S. Patent No. 5,017,903).
After a 10 year lawsuit, Ford Motor was found to have willfully infringed the ‘903 patent and the Court awarded double-damages to the inventor for the willfully infringing sales (an additional $21 Million for the inventor).
In the end, the inventor was awarded $55,703,357 ($23,000,000 in damages, $21,017,400 in enhanced damages for willful infringement and $11,685,957 in prejudgment interest). The Court also granted the inventor his costs for the litigation which will be determined later.
RELATED DOCUMENTS:
Google Books Settlement Receives Preliminary Approval
November 23, 2009
A New York judge has granted preliminary approval to a revised settlement agreement between Google Inc., the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers. The revised agreement allows Google to distribute millions of copies of digital books online but narrows the number of books allowed. Members of the public have until January 28 to file objections. See the Wall Street Journal article: Third Time a Charm for Google Books Hearing?
How to Patent an Invention
November 20, 2009
It is a slow patent news week. However, we have posted a new web page devoted to teaching inventors how to patent an invention. We hope you find the patent information valuable in teaching you how to patent your invention!
