• Patent False Marking Claims Require Evidence of Deceptive Intent
  • June 25, 2010 | Authors: Matthew N. Bathon; James S. Blackburn; Ryan McMonagle
  • Law Firms: Arnold & Porter LLP - Washington Office ; Arnold & Porter LLP - Los Angeles Office
  • On June 10, 2010, the Federal Circuit handed down its decision in Pequignot v. Solo Cup Company, which provides important guidance on whether and when a failure to remove expired patent markings from a product will meet the requirement of an intent to deceive in a false marking case. This decision follows on the court’s December 2009 decision in Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Company, which held that the penalty of up to US$500 for false patent marking should be imposed for each article that is falsely marked. As predicted by the Federal Circuit itself, the Forest Group decision sparked a wave of false patent marking lawsuits seeking to capitalize on the increased potential for false patent marking, including a substantial number of actions brought against companies for failure to remove references to expired patents from their product packaging. www.arnoldporter.com