|
Earlier this year, we had a long blog post about the sudden rush in patent marking lawsuits. You can read all the details there, but the quickish summary is that patent law says that you cannot falsely claim patent protection on something -- and goods that have expired patents, but still claim patent protection, fall into that category of "false marking." The law allows people to sue for $500 in cases of false marking, but a court ruling last December shook things up quite a bit, by saying that the $500 applied per product rather than (as many had assumed for years) per product line. That meant that in the famous case of Solo's plastic cup lids found on coffee cups around the world, suddenly it faced the potential not of a $500 liability but potentially a $10 trillion liability. Now, no court in the world would grant such an award, but it certainly increased the potential liability and caused lots of companies to start scrambling to get rid of any mention of expired patents on their products. And... at the same time, it led to a bunch of patent lawyers rushing around their local stores looking for just about any consumer product marked with an expired patent. Approximately 350 such lawsuits have been filed since the December ruling.
Now it appears another shoe has dropped. One of the reasons why these patent lawyers (and a few others) went around searching for products is that the law is pretty clear that:
"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." Yes. Basically, the law is setup such that, in the service of the US government, which doesn't want falsely marked goods, anyone who discovers such a false marking can so, so long as they split the proceeds 50/50 with the US government. But then... a District Court in NY put a halt to that, when a guy named Raymond Stauffer sued famed clothing retailer Brooks Brothers for selling bow ties with patents that expired decades ago. The District Court tossed out the case, agreeing with Brooks Brothers that Stauffer had no standing to bring the lawsuit. This put a bunch of those 350 other lawsuits on hold to determine if "any person" really meant "any person."
Well, open the floodgates, because the appeals court has said that any person does, in fact, mean any person, and thus Stauffer has standing to bring the lawsuit:
Now, I'll admit that I'm a bit torn about this whole situation. It's no secret that I'm not a fan of the patent system as it stands today, and how it's widely used to give monopoly privileges where none should exist. So, I definitely like the fact that there's a system in place to easily go after those who falsely claim a monopoly privilege where none exists (any longer). If you're still claiming a monopoly on something where that patent has expired, it could scare off competition and innovation building on that product -- and that's bad for innovation. So, in general, I'm inclined to support efforts that ward off false marking.
That said, it seems clear that the sudden goldrush mentality of patent attorneys suing all sorts of companies for false marking is a pure moneygrab, where there's little evidence of any real harm at times. It just seems like a way to tie up the courts in hopes of a golden lottery ticket (shared with the feds). That doesn't seem efficient or useful -- and actually has some unfortunate similarities to basic patent trolling.
Perhaps this sorts itself out, however. With the rush of cases, companies are scrambling to review all their product packaging and to remove expired patent markings as quickly as possible. After that initial scramble, the number of these lawsuits should drop pretty quickly. On top of that, the current version of the patent reform bill (which seems to get worse every time we hear about -- but may have already stalled out in Congress again) also would try to cut back on such false marking lawsuits. But, in the meantime, with this new ruling, expect a bunch more of these lawsuits to be filed.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more at....
|
