Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc.

Cessation of Sales Does Not Cure Non-Compliance with Marking Statute

Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., __ F.3d __, 2020 WL ___ (Fed. Cir. Feb. 19, 2020) (LOURIE, Moore, Stoll) (S.D. Fla.: Bloom) (3 of 5 stars)

Fed Cir affirms decision not to award pre-complaint damages. Arctic Cat’s patents relate to thrust steering systems for personal watercraft (“PWCs”). The pre-complaint cessation of sales of unmarked products, accompanied by neither actual notice to the alleged infringer nor a start to marking, does not initiate the § 287 damages period. Interpreting the statutory text, the opinion reasons, “[O]nce a patentee [or, here, licensee] begins making or selling a patented article, the notice requirement attaches, and the obligation imposed by § 287 is discharged only by providing actual or constructive notice.” Op. at 8. That the jury found Bombardier’s infringement willful did not require otherwise, per Amsted Industries, 24 F.3d 178 (Fed. Cir. 1994), because the § 287 inquiry focuses on the patentee’s acts, not the infringer’s knowledge or understanding.

KEYWORDS: MARKING; PRE-SUIT DAMAGES