In the latest high-profile development on the false patent marking front, Judge Dan Polster of the Northern District of Ohio has held that the qui tam provision of the patent marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292(b), is unconstitutional. Unique Product Solutions, Ltd. v. Hy-Grade Valve, Inc., No. 5:10-CV-01912, 2011 WL 649998 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 23, 2011).
The patent marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292, prohibits falsely marking an article with a patent number for the purpose of deceiving the public. It further imposes a fine of "not more than $500 for every such offense," and, in the controversial qui tam provision, states that "[a]ny 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." Since the Federal Circuit held in Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Company, 590 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2009), that the fine applies per each individual item falsely marked, many hundreds of cases have been filed by qui tam relators seeking to cash in. Various challenges have been made to the patent marking statute, and the proposed Patent Reform Act of 2011 (S. 23) would eliminate the qui tam provision altogether, allowing suit only by the government for penalties or by a competitor for damages.
Hy-Grade involved a qui tam relator who had brought many false marking suits, including more than two dozen in the Northern District of Ohio alone. At the court's suggestion, the parties briefed the issue of whether the patent marking statute comports with the Take Care Clause of the U.S. Constitution; the Department of Justice was notified but did not intervene. Judge Polster held that the qui tam provision does violate the Take Care Clause, which provides that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." U.S. Const. Art. II § 3. Unlike the enforcement provision of the False Claims Act, a qui tam act that has withstood repeated challenge, Judge Polster held that the patent marking statute fails to give the government sufficient control over the prosecution of false marking claims brought in its name, because they can be filed without any approval from or notice to the Department of Justice and in fact can be settled before the U.S. Patent Office is even notified that a patent suit has been filed. Reasoning that the qui tam provision of the statute "essentially represents a wholesale delegation of criminal law enforcement power to private entities, with no control exercised by the Department of Justice," the court dismissed the case with prejudice.
What This Means for You
The rise of a "cottage industry" of false marking suits foretold by the Federal Circuit in Bon Tool has met resistance, both in the courts, where cases have largely stalled or failed, and in the Congress, where there are ongoing efforts to change the law. Unless and until the floodgates are firmly closed, either by the courts or by Congress, qui tam relators are likely to continue to bring false marking claims. There is, however, a case already pending before the Federal Circuit, United States ex rel. FLFMC, LLC v. Wham-O, Inc., No. 2011-1067, in which Wham-O is challenging the constitutionality of the patent marking statute under the Take Care Clause, which was not decided by the district court. The outcome of that case may resolve the issue more quickly than any appeal of Hy-Grade. In the meantime, the decision in the Hy-Grade case is likely to slow considerably the pace of litigation, and more potential plaintiffs may choose to wait until the threshold constitutional question is resolved. While the Hy-Grade decision is not binding on other federal courts, it may make judges more receptive to the constitutional challenge. Alternatively, however, many courts may simply choose to stay false marking cases in anticipation of the Federal Circuit's resolution of the constitutional issue, just as they did in anticipation of that court's decision on a constitutional standing question in Stauffer v. Brooks Brothers, Inc., 619 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010). While all this uncertainty continues, the best approach remains to take appropriate advice to ensure compliance with the patent marking statute in the first place.
Intellectual Property Partner Jonathan Tropp will speak at the "Attorney's Guide for Understanding Copyright Law and Software in 2021," webinar presented by Thompson Reuters, the Global Cyber Institute, and Lexeprint Publishing on January 24.
Partners Kevin J. Duffy and Richard H. Brown authored the article, "Shouting FIRE! (or Worse) on Social Media: The Interplay of the First Amendment and Government Involvement in Efforts to Limit or Remove Social Media Content," which was published in the Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal.
Day Pitney and the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) Northeast Chapter co-hosted a virtual roundtable, "Basic Tech and Cyber Competency for In-House Counsel," on September 23.
On September 16, Elizabeth Alquist and Catherine Dugan O'Connor will serve on a panel, moderated by Christopher Droney, for the session, "Anatomy of a Trademark Case," at the Connecticut Bar Association's Connecticut Legal Conference.
Day Pitney Press Release
Jon Tropp, a partner at Day Pitney, was appointed to the Town Council's Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Task Force for the Trumbull community
Day Pitney's Michael Napoleone has been appointed to the Palm Beach County League of Cities board of directors.
In the BTI Litigation Outlook 2020: Changes, Trends, and Opportunities for Law Firms, published by the BTI Consulting Group, Day Pitney was named a "Powerhouse in Complex Commercial Litigation."
Ryan Osterweil was quoted in an article, "'It Isn't Illegal If It Doesn't Exist yet': Patent Laws Pose Challenges for the Cannabis Industry," which was published by Cannabis Wire and reports on a recent New York City Bar Association program where he served as a panelist.