Comments on: Marking new products with an expired patent

By: J. Matthew Buchanan

J. Matthew Buchanan — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:02:53 +0000

@waynemcdougall Agree re patent marking giving credibility, but can’t advise folks that marking with expired patents won’t have consequences

Wayne McDougall — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:41:57 +0000

I think a patent no. (even pending) gives product cachet of credibility to many consumers @jmattbuchanan =>keep printing expired patent no.

uberVU - social comments — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:06:46 +0000

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…

J. Matthew Buchanan — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:04:27 +0000

@MikeDriehorst very. I can stomach the court’s reasoning for recently expired patents, but not easy to do for one that expired 30 years ago.

J. Matthew Buchanan — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:00:18 +0000

Followup to my patent marking post (http://is.gd/56mG6) – an overview of recent ‘bizarre and novel’ false marking suits – http://is.gd/56myt

Mike Driehorst — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:47:26 +0000

@jmattbuchanan Interesting, esp. part where Solo acted “in good faith reliance on the advice of counsel” & did so hesitantly, it seems.

J. Matthew Buchanan — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:40:43 +0000

@MikeDriehorst re expired patents, recent case says presumption of intent to deceive is weaker – http://is.gd/56lP6 – wait for appeal

Thomas DelRosario — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:40:48 +0000

RT @jmattbuchanan A favorite from my collection of markings – new product marked w/ patent that expired ~30 years ago – http://bit.ly/4RoFM2

Bryan Beel — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:36:00 +0000

RT @jmattbuchanan A favorite from my collection of markings – new product marked w/ patent that expired ~30 years ago – http://bit.ly/4RoFM2

J. Matthew Buchanan — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:35:14 +0000

@MikeDriehorst “perception doesn’t = reality” – great way to summarize the purpose of the false marking statute.