LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 149
0 members and 149 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 04:16 AM.
View Single Post
Old 07-11-2009, 04:26 PM   #2089
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,149
Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
I want to say I hate this lawyer, but I know I'd do the same thing if I stumbled into the claim.

Which probably explains a lot my self-loathing.
I always stay at the Hay Adams when I go to the Fed Cir, but nimble nuts here is on his own dime, so who knows where he'll stay.

  • False Marking Case Dismissed
    Posted: 10 Jul 2009 02:31 PM PDT
    Pequignot v. Solo Cup (E.D. Va.)

    Judge Brinkema has dismissed Matthew Pequignot’s false marking case against Solo Cup and cancelled the trial previously set to be heard this month. [Order] At oral arguments, the Judge indicated that the ruling is intended to "get [the] case teed up for the Federal Circuit."

    In this case, Solo knew that its patents had expired but continued to use the same molds to make its coffee cup lids and other disposable products. During that time - between 20 and 50 billion products were manufactured - each marked as patented. The falseness of the marking was not in serious dispute. Nonetheless, Judge Brinkema ruled that Pequignot did not have any direct evidence to prove that the false marking was done “for the purpose of deceiving the public” as required by the statute. 35 USC 292.

    On appeal the Federal Circuit will likely be asked to clarify the level of culpability or intent necessary for a finding of purposeful deception. The choice may follow the same lines of debate as the issue of willful patent infringement. The Federal Circuit recently shifted the law of willfulness to require at least objectively reckless acts of infringement (Seagate) and away from any affirmative duty of caution (Underwater Devices). Professor Winston has argued that intent to deceive should be presumed.

    Although the Federal Circuit will probably not be able to reach this issue, the parties hotly dispute the appropriate remedy. The statute calls for a maximum penalty of "not more than $500 for every such offense." Here, the question is whether damages should be calculated based on one offense per product line or one offense per item marked.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:17 AM.