Opinion ID: 815989
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The false marking counterclaim

Text: The defendants also brought a counterclaim for “false marking,” because the Tote Towels apparently retained the label “patent pending” for a few months after the patent had issued. The defendants argue that falsity alone establishes liability for false marking, and that intent is not a component of a false marking claim. A marking of “patent pending” after the patent has issued is not the falsity to which this qui tam statute was directed; the statute was directed at marking with an HALL v. BED BATH 25 expired or inapplicable patent. The recent America Invents Act changed the law of false marking, and the complainant must now show that it suffered a competitive injury as a result of the false marking. 35 U.S.C. §292(b). The change is retroactive in that “[t]he amendments made by this subsection . . . apply to all cases, without exception, that are pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of the enactment” in 2011. Pub. L. No. 112-29, §16(b)(4), 125 Stat. 284, 329 (2011). This enactment applies “to all pending cases, including cases pending in appellate courts.” Rogers v. Tristar Prods., Nos. 20111494, -1495, 2012 WL 1660604, at  (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2012). The defendants have not pleaded any competitive injury caused by the “patent pending” label on Hall’s patented Tote Towels. The district court’s dismissal of this counterclaim is affirmed.