On December 23, 2009, the Federal Circuit Court of
Appeals held that patent owners and others may be fined up to
$500.00 for every product or advertisement bearing a false patent
marking. False patent markings include the following:
"Patent Pending", when no patent application
is actually pending.
Any patent number, if the patent has
expired.
Any patent number, if the patent does not cover the
product marked.
The patent number of another, if used without consent
of the owner.
Any other patent markings which are
false.
Any person may sue for damages for false
marking.
For details see below.
DAMAGES FOR FALSE PATENT MARKING CLARIFIED—ADDITIONAL
CASES LIKELY
False patent marking may be as costly as infringement to the
guilty parties....
Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.
From the end of last year, King & Wood has received regular requests from a number of foreign enterprises for advice on China's 'Indigenous Innovation' Policy. These firms are concerned that the new policy will either force the transfer of their IP rights to China or will influence their business operations in the Chinese market by limiting their ability to compete with local domestic firms.
The UK and Chinese Governments have signed a Memorandum of Understanding on copyright. Under the agreement, the countries will work together on copyright issues to promote strong trade between them.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued an update to its obviousness guidelines for examiners, to be used when applying the law of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (the Guidelines).
We have recently reported on the long-awaited decision of the United States Supreme Court in Bilski, which amongst other things, upheld the "machine or transformation" test as an "important tool" in determining patentable subject matter
In Telcordia Technologies, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Nos. 09-1175, -1184 (Fed. Cir. July 6, 2010), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of SJ of noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,893,306 ("the ’306 patent"), vacated the denial of Cisco Systems, Inc.’s ("Cisco") motion for JMOL that the ’306 patent was invalid as anticipated and remanded the issue to the district court, affirmed the district court’s denial of Cisco’s motion for JMOL that U.S. Patent No. 4,835,763 ("the ’7
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently decided agreements between horizontal competitors to license potentially competing, patented technologies exclusively through a patent pool does not support a patent misuse defense.
In March 2010, we reported on continuing progress toward New Zealand's new Patents Act. Specifically, it was noted that, in its report to Parliament following public consultation on the Patents Bill 2008 (PB), the Commerce Select Committee provided a real "curveball" in purporting to now exclude computer software from patentability
Australia has just had its second Federal Court decision involving our rather controversial "second tier" patent system, the innovation patent. In the case, Seafood Innovations Pty Ltd v Richard Bass Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 723 (12 July 2010), the plaintiff sued over two innovation patents in the field of fish processing machinery. It is noteworthy that the second of the innovation patents was granted after the litigation had commenced and the plaintiff had seen a detailed response from the defendant
