Comments on: A fortune in his coffee cup?

By: “Judge closes door on legal quirk in patent law”

“Judge closes door on legal quirk in patent law” — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 04:50:14 +0000

[…] Bounty-hunters crestfallen: a federal judge has rejected a Washington, D.C. lawyer’s suit against Solo Cup for stamping its product with expired patent numbers. [AP/Washington Post, earlier] […]

By: Joe Markowitz

Joe Markowitz — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:06:29 +0000

Of course, anybody can ask for any dollar amount in the complaint, but the amount prayed for or the amount demanded in settlement does not bind the judge or the jury. All it has is PR value. Let’s wait and see what a court actually awards for a case such as this one, before we start jumping to conclusions about whether anybody has recovered millions for a few hours of work. Let’s also remember that his case is brought on behalf of the government, so we all benefit from any recovery. The only interest the lawyer has is the share of the award that the court and the statute may allow him.

By: ps

ps — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:38:07 +0000

$9 million for many hours work doesn’t sound like a bad deal. I don’t make near that for many decades of work. Unless, of course, the concept of “work” is what has Pequignot stymied.

By: Dirk D

Dirk D — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:14:11 +0000

“How is a patent number a “false marking”, exactly?”

Putting a patent number on the product can be and is likely to be construed as claiming that the product is protected by a patent. Once the patent is expired, claiming patent protection is misleading. A hundred years ago researching patents was difficult to say the least, thus having a claim against parties that would mislead competitors as to the nature of patent protection for a product made sense. That said, they should close this loop hole. There is no reason for consumers to police this.

By: Bryan C

Bryan C — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:09:10 +0000

How is a patent number a “false marking”, exactly? The patent marks I’m familiar with simply state that a patent is on file, which seems to be true in this case. That number gives anyone interested an easy way to discover all of the details that are required to be public, including whether or not the patent has expired. Patent numbers can be interesting. (Yeah, I know. I’m one of those weird people who also look up FCC ID numbers, USGS markers, and fruit-label codes.)

By: Doug

Doug — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:43:40 +0000

This is what happens when private citizens are allowed to be private attorney’s generals.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:47:46 +0000

Nine million dollars for ‘a few hours work’ sounds fascinating.

I guess I made a wrong career choice somewhere down the line.