直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Emphasizes that Patentee Always Bears the Burden to Prove Statutory Marking

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.

Tags

infringement

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Licensing, Pooling, and Other Transactions

Prosecution and Portfolio Management

Contacts

C. Collette Corser
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 6052
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

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.

Related Insights

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Webinar

Successful Strategies to Win Alice Motions and Fee Awards in Patent Cases Against Non-Practicing Entities

July 22, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

Articles

When the Classroom Goes Dark: Lessons from the Canvas Breach for Corporate Cyber Preparedness

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

July 8, 2026

Webinar

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for March–May 2026

July 2, 2026

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: May 2026

June 30, 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