直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • News
  • Finnegan Facts
  • History
    • Finnegan VISION
    • Finnegan FORWARD
  • Pro Bono
  • Management
    • Pricing & Alternative Fee Arrangements
    • AFA Models We Offer
    • Contingency Fees
    • AI + KM

Commentary

How Marking Mishaps Mess up Patent Litigation Strategies

May 13, 2022

Managing Intellectual Property

Patent owners are required to mark their patented products with the word ‘patent’ or ‘pat’ along with a corresponding patent number or website listing the patent. If patent owners fail to properly mark their product, they can face repercussions during a patent litigation procedure. Managing Intellectual Property interviewed Finnegan partner David Mroz to discuss implications for failing to properly mark patents.

Dave explained that companies can have a patent marking procedure in place, but then license the patent to other companies that may not follow through on the proper procedure for marking products as required. He stated, “This could cause the compliance rate to drop below the substantial compliance threshold and preclude a party from satisfying the marking statute, even though a marking policy was in place.”

If a patent owner bringing an infringement suit failed to comply with marking requirements, in order to obtain pre-suit damages, they might need to drop apparatus claims, which cover what an invention is, and assert only method claims, covering what an invention does. Some courts are more lenient than others when allowing plaintiffs to drop apparatus claims.

Dave explained that the varying consensus on dropping apparatus claims during suit can lead to forum shopping within the confines of TC Heartland. He advised attorneys to look at a court’s history of how they have resolved similar disputes when deciding which forum to file suit. Dave added that it would be helpful for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to rule on the issue. 

Read "How Marking Mishaps Mess up Patent Litigation Strategies"

Related Practices

Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Related Professionals

David K. Mroz
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4022
Email

Related News

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Recognized Again Among Germany’s Leading Law Firms

October 9, 2026

Press Release

Finnegan Secures Summary Determination of No Violation in ITC Vehicle Space Guards Investigation for Drop Stop

October 6, 2026

Commentary

Catching Up with Hope Shimabuku

September 29, 2026

Commentary

Federal Circuit Revives Whistleblower Complaint Over VA's AI Claims-Processing Tool

September 25, 2026

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Named an IP Litigation Powerhouse in BTI Litigation Outlook 2027

September 24, 2026

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Receives Top Tier Rankings in World Trademark Review’s Inaugural Copyright 1000 2026

September 23, 2026

Press Release

Finnegan Secures Precedential Pro Bono Federal Circuit Victory for AI Whistleblower

September 23, 2026

Commentary

New Thomas Pink Womenswear Lines Strain ‘Pink’ Pact with Victoria’s Secret

September 21, 2026

Commentary

FORUM IP Talks: Dr. Jochen Herr on UPC, FRAND, and Cross-Border Enforcement Topics

September 20, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP