Home > 35 USC 292, False marking > False Marking Suits Go Bananas

False Marking Suits Go Bananas

We noted in a post last week that there has been a dramatic uptick in the rate of filing of false marking suits.  As noted there, false marking suits are qui tam actions filed under 35 USC Sec. 292, with an individual making the claim on behalf of the United States (any monetary award is shared equally between the plaintiff and the U.S.).  We posited (as have others, such as Justin Gray at Gray on Claims) that this uptick may be due to the Federal Circuit’s holding in Forest Group v. Bon Tool that false marking damages shall be awarded on a per-article basis (rather than on a per-occurrence basis), thus raising the possibility of large damage awards.

The rate of filings has continued unabated.  Using the lawsuit classifications of RFC Express, it appears that there have been 14 18 more false marking complaints filed in the last 4 days.

  • Arthur Lee Yarbough v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. & Energizer Holdings, Inc., Feb. 19, 2010, 10-cv-00096, E.D. Tex.
  • Gregory Harrelson v. Stanley Works, Inc., Feb. 19, 2010, 10-cv-00371, N.D. Ala.
  • Advanced Cartridge Techs., LLC v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., Feb. 22, 2010, M.D. Fla.
  • Patent Compliance Group, Inc. v. Tweezerman Int’l LLC, Feb. 22, 2010, 10-cv-00350, N.D. Tex.
  • Patent Compliance Group, Inc. v. Nutro Products Inc. & S&M NuTec LLC, Feb. 22, 2010, 10-cv-00351, N.D. Tex.
  • Azimuth Unlimited, LLC v. Seatel, Inc., Feb. 22, 2010, 10-cv-60253, S.D. Fla.
  • Thomas A. Simonian v. Mead Westvaco Corp., Feb. 23, 2010, 10-cv-01217, N.D. Ill.
  • Thomas A. Simonian v. Weber-Stephen Prods. Co., Feb. 23, 2010, 10-cv-01220, N.D. Ill.
  • Patent Compliance Group, Inc. v. Hunter Fan Co., Feb. 23, 2010, 10-cv-00359, N.D. Tex.
  • David O’Neill v. Roche Diagnostics Corp., Feb. 23, 2010, 10-cv-01205, N.D. Ill.
  • Thomas A. Simonian v. Pfizer, Inc., Feb. 23, 2010, 10-cv-01193, N.D. Ill.
  • Thomas A. Simonian v. Bunn-O-Matic Corp., Feb. 23, 2010, 10-cv-01203, N.D. Ill.
  • Thomas A. Simonian v. Ciba Vision Corp., Feb. 23, 2010, 10-cv-01202, N.D. Ill.
  • Thomas A. Simonian v. Blistex, Inc., Feb. 23, 2010, 10-cv-01201, N.D. Ill.
  • Thomas A. Simonian v. Fiskars Brands, Inc., 10-cv-01225, Feb. 23, 2010, N.D. Ill.
  • Thomas A. Simonian v. Oreck Corp. et al., 10-cv-01224, Feb. 23, 2010, N.D. Ill.
  • Thomas A. Simonian v. Merial LLC et al., 10-cv-01216, Feb. 23, 2010, N.D. Ill.
  • Thomas A. Simonian v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. et al., 10-cv-01214, Feb. 23, 2010, N.D. Ill.

This listing makes crystal clear that at least some people (or entities) are making a serious go of it in searching out falsely marked goods.  If businesses needed any more encouragement to review their patent portfolios and package markings, this should be it.  Any falsely marked good is now like big game to the false marking hunters.

[Updated at 10:26pm to add a 14th complaint]

[Updated 7:00am Feb. 24, 2010 to add more]

Advertisements
Categories: 35 USC 292, False marking
  1. No comments yet.
  1. April 2, 2010 at 8:51 AM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: