Patent (Had Better Be) Pending

Monday, March 08, 2010

"In other words, it is a violation of 35 U.S.C. § 292 to intentionally mark an item in commerce with a patent number that has expired or that does not protect the item. ... In Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co., the Federal Circuit ruled that the $500 maximum penalty attaches to each individual article that is falsely marked..."
FDA Law Blog, 3/7/10

Yikes. I don't have any special insight or expertise in this situation, but this struck me as a pretty important link to pass along. If you mark a device "patent pending" it appears to be pretty important that you actually file a patent application. The days of using the term as an empty threat may be ending.

 

Tags: Advertising & Promotion, Best Practices, FDA

Share / Follow



Other Blog Authors

Dylan Reinhardt
Dave Kern
Maureen Mende
Diane Ward

Recent Blogs

The Dream of the 90s is Alive at CBER OraSure's at-home HIV test delivers on 20 years of effort
In-Vehicle Diagnostics Assessing the bold future of automotive medicine
Great New Companion Diagnostics E-Book Released Today A valuable resource in a hot, but under-informed segment of the market
Oragene Clearance Shows DNA Stabilization is Class II Clearance could have a significant impact on DTCG providers