In a ruling that creates a split among the Eastern District of Pennsylvania federal judges, U.S. District Judge Michael M. Baylson has rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of the qui tam provision of the Patent Act’s false marking statute — a law that allows any citizen to sue on behalf of the United States when a product is marketed as “patented” when the patent has expired or never existed.

The issue is one of the most closely watched right now in the intellectual property world because false marking suits recently burgeoned into a hot practice area as a result of a 2009 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]