Sunday, October 10, 2010

Legislation Introduced to Curb False Marking Claims

Congressman Bob Latta (R- Bowling Green) recently introduced H.R. 6352, the Patent Lawsuit Reform Act of 2010.

If passed, H.R. 6352 would strengthen the vague language to revert back to the pre-Forest Group decision and assess one $500 fine if found guilty of deceiving the public under Section 292 and not allow for the interpretation of being fined for each product on the market. The legislation will also require the individual bringing the lawsuit to have suffered a competitive injury as a result of the violation.


“Because of the Forest Group decision, this legislation is now needed to help companies fend off frivolous lawsuits and strengthen current law. During this time of economic uncertainty, companies should not have to worry about expending additional resources on lawsuits based on one court’s interpretation of current law,” Latta stated after introducing the legislation.

H.R. 6352 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
Read the press release here (link)

While the US Government Printing Office has not released text of the legislation yet, you can track the bill's progress here (link)

10 Comentários:

Anonymous said...

No chance of this getting passed this term, of course. Any speculation on when this might pass?

Anonymous said...

How about - never.

The law as is is fine. There are two prongs that must be met, and if met the up to $500 fine per item is perfectly legitimate.

Latta is grandstanding here. If he wanted to eliminate this he would have been better off proposing legislation that would have simply eliminated the section, rather than creating a vestige "token" maximum $500 fine that would never be pursued, thus diminishing rather than enhancing the respect for patents that the False Marking section was meant to produce.

Get a clue Latta.

Anonymous said...

Latta is not grandstanding. Since January, about 20 lawsuits per day have been filed, flooding the judicial system. These suits are being filed by people hiding in their basements looking online for patent numbers, and filing these frivolous suits. Solo cups was sued for 5.4 TRILLION dollars, because the mold they were using to make their cups still had an old patent number on it.

Take a look HERE for a list of the companies falling victim to these predators.

Anonymous said...

Since when does breaking the law make you a victim?

Let's make it real easy - You use the mark of the patent, you obey the law about the use of that mark. There is no mandatory requirement that makes anybody use a patent mark.

You have your terms of "victim" and "predator" backwards.

Anonymous said...

Let me guess, you work for Doolittle Buckingham or Unique Product Solutions (not that theres any difference), right?

Anonymous said...

No - neither.

I do care about the law and what it actually says though, and care very much to fight the propaganda being spewed about on this topic.

You seem to miss the point about just who is to be protected from whom with this law. Please try to understand what you are commenting on.

patent litigation said...

It's certainly time Congress addressed false marking. Nevertheless, while I agree that false-marking bounty hunting was getting out of control, I would not necessarily characterize such patent litigation as "frivolous." After all, in this "time of economic uncertainty," companies should not be permitted to hinder the innovation and potential economic advancement of others -- which is a possible consequence of erroneously marking their products. I'd like to hear the rest of Congress weigh in on this issue.

Anonymous said...

"while I agree that false-marking bounty hunting was getting out of control"

Really? Show me an example of "out of control." And that most definitely does not mean mere filings. Any body can file - when you have repeated unjustified court results, then - and only then - can you righteously say the situation is out of control - all else is empty fear mongering.

Anonymous said...

The frivolus bs, is just a buzz word that opponents of patent litigators use to scare the public into thinking that the lawyers are causing all of our problems. If I am correct, frivolus lawsuit refers to a lawsuit that has not basis in fact whatsoever, which you don't get past many if any judges if you don't have any factual basis for your suit. What is frivolus is the lack of facts that support all the calls for reform. Show me the stats or shut-up!

Anonymous said...

http://patentservicesindia.net/home.html

DISCLAIMER

This Blog/Web Site ("Blog") is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Use of the Blog does not create any attorney-client relationship between you and Peter Zura or his firm. Persons requiring legal advice should contact a licensed attorney in your state. Any comment posted on the Blog can be read by any Blog visitor; do not post confidential or sensitive information. Any links from another site to the Blog are beyond the control of Peter Zura and does not convey his, or his past or present employer(s) approval, support, endorsement or any relationship to any site or organization.

The 271 Patent Blog © 2008. Template by Dicas Blogger.

TOPO