Subscribe | Log in

Marking new products with an expired patent

2009K23A-Patent_marking-001

I’ve taken hundreds of pictures of patent markings over the years. Different marks catch my eye for different reasons – some have an interesting graphic presentation of patent-related information, while others have interesting text associated with the mark (various warnings and such). Most are fairly boring and completely unremarkable (yes, it’s true…a patent marking can be completely uninteresting).

There is one category of marks that I always find interesting – new products marked with expired patents. It’s not a plague, for sure, but it happens more than you might expect (more than I initially did, anyways).3163386_fig1

This mark is one of my favorites from that category. The product is a brand new box of duct brackets – ‘brand new’ as in ‘purchased in 2009′ – that is prominently marked with United States Patent No. 3,163,386. The Patent Office issued the ‘386 patent in 1964, meaning it expired in 1981, nearly thirty years ago!

The invention is simple – an adjustable bracket for supporting ducts placed between floor joists (see Figure 1 from the patent, at right). The bracket can be installed by a single person without nails, no doubt a significant advance in 1963 (when the application was filed).

While the fact that these brackets are still being used (and preferred by contractors – I asked) is a strong testament to the significance of the invention, it does not create any sort of term extension.

A Twitter friend (@MikeDriehorst) asked whether this practice was illegal. I answered with a definitive “it depends” and then researched the matter a bit.

The False Marking statute (35 U.S.C. 292) seems sufficiently clear on its face. The second paragraph of subsection a prohibits marking an unpatented article as patented:

“Whoever marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with any unpatented article, the word “patent” or any word or number importing that the same is patented for the purpose of deceiving the public;”

The rub, of course, is the requirement of an intent to deceive. A recent district court opinion (Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co.) recognizes the question of ‘what suffices to prove the required intent when the marking involves only expired patents’ as one of first impression. That court reasoned that a presumption of the intent (established by the Federal Circuit decision in Clontech Laboratories v. Invitrogen) is diminished in these circumstances because:

“…the possibility of actual deceit, as well as the benefit to the false marker, are diminished. When a product is marked with an expired patent number, any person with basic knowledge of the patent system can look up the patent and determine its expiration date, reducing the potential for being deceived.”

The Pequignot case is currently under appeal to the Federal Circuit.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 24th, 2009 at 9:42 am and is filed under patent law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

Discussion

There are 13 responses to this post, including 0 comments, 1 pings, 11 tweetbacks, and 1 related tweets.

You can join the discussion by leaving a comment on this page using the form at the bottom, by pinging the page with a post on your own site, or by adding a tweet to your Twitter page that mentions the post.

I try to collect related tweets that readers of the post will find helpful or interesting. If you know of a tweet that provides background content, a different viewpoint, or other relevant information, please send me a link to the tweet.

Comments

There are no comments on this post.

Pings

  • uberVU - social comments
    # posted on 11.28.09 at 10:06 pm

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by bipo: New post on the BIPO blog – Marking new products with an expired patent – http://bit.ly/4RoFM2…

Tweetbacks

Other relevant tweets

Leave a comment

(required)

(required)