Blog March 23, 2020
AIA revisions to false marking statute not unconstitutional
- Person title
Federal Circuit affirms dismissal of qui tam false marking case, filed before AIA enactment, for lack of standing.
Stauffer v. Brooks Brothers Grp., Inc., ___F.3d ___ (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2014) (Lourie, SCHALL, Moore) (S.D.N.Y.: Stein) (1 of 5 stars)
Mr. Stauffer argued for unconstitutionality of the AIA provisions permitting marking with expired patent numbers, eliminating the false-marking statute's qui tam provision, and doing so for all pending cases. He had standing under Lujan to present such an appeal: if he won on both issues, his qui tam suit could move forward and a favorable decision would address his alleged injury.
The AIA's false-marking revision was better characterized as repealing a law (which Congress can do) than invoking the executive pardoning power (which Congress cannot usurp). Under Landgraf, such repeals generally preclude punishment for acts taken before the repeal.
The AIA's elimination of the qui tam action for pending cases was also not unconstitutional. Mr. Stauffer had no vested right in his litigation, nor were the AIA amendments an unconstitutional use of the pardon power.
Mr. Stauffer waived other constitutional and quasi-constitutional arguments by not raising them before the district court.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
Blog November 4, 2019
Legal Alert | Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. — What Did the Federal Circuit Do?
Blog August 17, 2018
En Banc Federal Circuit: Patentee's Service of Complaint, Followed by Voluntary Dismissal, Triggers IPR Clock
Blog October 5, 2017
Legal Alert: Federal Circuit Faults PTO's Approach to Claim Amendments During IPR, But Allows PTO to Try to Fix the Problem
Blog May 16, 2016
Software Claims Directed to Specific Improvements in Computer Operations May be "Non-Abstract"
Blog May 2, 2016
Corporate Residence Definition in Patent Cases Unchanged by Congressional Revisions to Venue Statute; Minimum Contacts Under Beverly Hills Fan Reaffirmed
Blog April 11, 2016
Claims Directed to Detection of Gene Variants Patent-Ineligible, Notwithstanding Mental Activity Requirement
Blog July 27, 2015
Judicial Review Available for Decision that a Patent Qualified for CBM Review; § 101 Review Appropriate in CBM Review
Blog July 8, 2015
Software Claim Addressing Concepts Long Known in Other Fields and Lacking Other Inventive Concept Is Not Patent Eligible
Blog June 18, 2015
Ordered Method Claim Does Not Bar Partly-Simultaneous Performance of Steps
Blog December 4, 2023
Amended FRE 702 on Expert Testimony Effective December 1, 2023
Blog December 1, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: November 2023
Blog November 27, 2023
Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up: Q3 2023
Blog November 15, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: October 2023
Blog November 9, 2023
Legal Alert: FTC Challenges More Than 100 Patents as Improperly Listed in Orange Book
Blog November 3, 2023
District of Delaware Finds Allergan Patents Invalid for Lack of Written Description and Obviousness-Type Double Patenting in Allergan v. MSN Labs
Blog October 31, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: October 2023
Blog October 30, 2023
District of Delaware Finds Non-Orange Book-Listed Patents Subject to the Same Pleading Standard as Listed Patents in ANDA Infringement Suit
Blog October 11, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: September 2023
Blog September 25, 2023
Federal Circuit Evaluates Enablement for Antibody Claims for the First Time Since Amgen v. Sanofi in Baxalta Inc. et al. v. Genentech, Inc.