FalseMarking.Net: An Information Resource on False Marking Litigation

FalseMarkingforDennis.gifFor the past several days, I have been attending a meeting of in house IP counsel and a portion of the topic has focused on the new phenomenon of false marking litigation.

My friends at the MBHB law firm have created a new information resource on the pending false marking patent cases. The website includes current information on pleadings, decisions, legislation, and other notes and can be found at www.FalseMarking.net. The site grew out of the firm's work in defending against these lawsuits.

11 thoughts on “FalseMarking.Net: An Information Resource on False Marking Litigation

  1. Lionel,

    No. If you mark correctly, yous got nothin to worry about. Why are your undies in such a bunch?

  2. Isn’t the unbiased position that only opportunists and f0 0ls support the current line of cases.

  3. You may have some concerns about this litigation, including questions like: Why now? What changed? What is going to happen with these cases? How will the courts deal with them? Will Congress reshape the field and change the rules mid-game? What is the status of a particular lawsuit? Should I worry that this will happen to my company? I’d like to keep up with what’s going on, but how do I keep track of so much information?

    Best Law Help

  4. The Google cache does indeed show that MBHB claimed that the site would be “a central location for obtaining unbiased, accurate, and in-depth information regarding patent marking.” While flashlight wholesale ,Rechargeable-Flashlight and Battery-Flashlight I believe the main point of my post still applies, and the information (apart from commentary/summary) is itself unbiased, I apologize for concluding that you had made claims for the site that it had not made for itself.

  5. Any comment or interpretation of a case is going to be somewhat subjective, and thus will include some sort of bias.

    Bullhockey.

  6. New detective team in the house.

    Mighty impressive work boys. Now let’s figure out why the MBHBers would say one thing and then change their minds so quickly.

    What do they really have to gain here?

  7. The Google cache does indeed show that MBHB claimed that the site would be “a central location for obtaining unbiased, accurate, and in-depth information regarding patent marking.” While I believe the main point of my post still applies, and the information (apart from commentary/summary) is itself unbiased, I apologize for concluding that you had made claims for the site that it had not made for itself.

  8. J-glo, blah, blah, blah. The site claimed to provide “unbiased” info yesterday, but apparently they updated the site.

    It used to say: We also want to provide a central location for obtaining UNBIASED, accurate, and in-depth information regarding patent marking – in particular false patent marking issues.

    Any comment or interpretation of a case is going to be somewhat subjective, and thus will include some sort of bias. Now that they don’t claim to be unbiased, I don’t have a problem with the site.

  9. David is correct.

    Nowhere on the FalseMarking.net site is there any mention that the information presented is “unbiased”.

    In fact, the site clearly states:

    Regardless of our role, we never lose sight of our clients’ business objectives.

    Our clients know they have trusted their legal issues and plans for the future with knowledgeable, principled professionals who have their best business interests in mind.

    Thus, it is more than merely “Seems like“. It is proudly proclaimed to be so.

  10. The site doesn’t claim to provide only “unbiased” information, does it?

    The site includes 35 USC 292, a seemingly complete list of contemporary litigation, copies of pleadings and opinions, and clip of the amendment proposed in S.B. 515. It appears to qualify as the “central location for obtaining accurate and in-depth information regarding patent marking” that it holds itself out to be.

    Even if MBHB provides “brief comments, putting this information in context,” that’s hardly impermissible or duplicitous. Any worthwhile professional should be able to parse opinion from summary when the source documents are also being made available to them. If you believe that there may be bias in the commentary, then ignore the commentary or the site, but don’t make claims on the site operators’ behalf that they obviously have not made for themselves.

  11. How can MBHB say they are providing “unbiased” information if they are defending against these law suits?? Seems like any comments or notes that they provide would be biased in favor of their client’s position.

Comments are closed.