Beginning Next Week: InsideCounsel will become part of Corporate Counsel. Bringing these two industry-leading websites together will now give you comprehensive coverage of the full spectrum of issues affecting today's General Counsel at companies of all sizes. You will continue to receive expert analysis on key issues including corporate litigation, labor developments, tech initiatives and intellectual property, as well as Women, Influence & Power in Law (WIPL) professional development content. Plus we'll be serving all ALM legal publications from one interconnected platform, powered by, giving you easy access to additional relevant content from other InsideCounsel sister publications.

To prevent a disruption in service, you will be automatically redirected to the new site next week. Thank you for being a valued InsideCounsel reader!


More On

False Patent Marks Can Add Up to Big Fines

A little known statute has become a big headache for patent owners, thanks to a recent . Forest Group Inc. v. Bon Tool Co. held that if a company falsely marks a product as patented, it can be slapped with fines of up to $500 per wrongly marked item. That can add up to a hefty amount if a company produces mass market products--such as razor blades--that happen to list an expired patent number.

The December 2009 Federal Circuit decision overturns a century of judicial rulings that imposed much lower fines for violations of the false marking statute, 35 U.S.C. ? 292. Under a line of cases stretching back to the 1st Circuit's 1910 decision, London v. Everett H. Dunbar Corp., the courts ruled that each incorrectly marked product did not constitute a separate violation of the false marking statute. Instead, a continuous false marking--such as the entire production run of a product--amounted to a single offense.

Because Forest Group greatly boosted the fines for violating the false marking statute, and because half the fines in a successful suit go to the party that brought the qui tam action to enforce the statute, many experts expect the decision to provoke a sharp rise in the number of false marking suits.

"The fear is that the case might breed a new breed of plaintiffs who don't care about the patent system or patent marking; they are just looking to bring lawsuits for damages or to shake down companies," says Paul Ackerman, a partner at Dorsey & Whitney.


Steven Seidenberg

Bio and more articles

Join the Conversation

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.