December 19, 2017
Authored and Edited by C. Collette Corser; Lillian M. Robinson; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded part of the district court’s decision in Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc., No. 2017-1475 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2017), finding that the district court committed legal error in placing the burden of proof to demonstrate marking on the alleged infringer.
The Court explained that the burden of proving compliance with the marking statute of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) “is and at all times remains with the patentee.” In cases where, as here, the alleged infringer challenges the patentee’s compliance with § 287, it bears the initial burden of production to articulate the products it believes were sold as unmarked. The Federal Circuit emphasized that this is a low bar, requiring only that the patentee be put on notice of specific unmarked products. The patentee then bears the burden of proving the identified products do not practice the patents-at-issue.
By identifying fourteen products sold by plaintiff’s licensee, the Federal Circuit concluded that defendant here met its initial burden. The Federal Circuit then found that the district court erred in requiring defendant to also demonstrate that the identified products practiced the asserted patents, so the Court vacated and remanded the judgment as to marking.
Copyright © 2017 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
At the PTAB Blog
Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a
§ 325(d) EPR Denial
May 28, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026
May 26, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
May 20, 2026
Webinar
Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement
May 18, 2026
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.