Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Simonian v. Merck & Co.

June 1, 2010

THOMAS A. SIMONIAN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MERCK & CO., INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM

Defendants Merck Co., Inc. and Schering-Plough Healthcare Products have noticed up for presentment on June 2, 2010 a motion to dismiss this action brought against them by Thomas Simonian--an action that is among the spate of lawsuits around the country inspired by the Federal Circuit's decision in Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co., 590 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Unsurprisingly, this Court has had occasion to address the same issue before now, and so it is transmitting to counsel, in conjunction with this memorandum, a copy of its May 12, 2010 memorandum order in Zojo Solutions, Inc. v. The Stanley Works, No. 10 C 1175.

Both sides' counsel are nonetheless expected to appear at the noticed-up presentment date. At that time this Court expects to discuss with counsel the future course of the litigation.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

ZOJO SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE STANLEY WORKS, Defendant.

No. 10 C 1175

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. ("Stanley")*fn1 has noticed up for presentment on May 14 a motion to dismiss this action brought against it by Zojo Solutions, Inc. ("Zojo")--an action among the very large number of lawsuits around the country that claim false patent marking in violation of 35 U.S.C. §292(a)("Section 292(a)"). This and all such other actions, which dot the greensward of patent litigation like an infestation of dandelions, have been prompted by the Federal Circuit's decision in Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co., 590 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2009), which has created the prospect of extraordinarily large damage awards in qui tam suits brought to enforce Section 292(a).

Although the defendants in other like actions on this Court's calendar and those of its colleagues have launched different attacks on the complaints in those cases, here Stanley has pointed to two claimed problems with Zojo's lawsuit:

1. Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 12(b)(6) assertedly calls for dismissal because Section 292(a) outlaws the false marking of "any unpatented article," while Stanley contends that its challenged articles are not "unpatented" because they practice a once-existing, but now-expired, patent.

2. Even if that assertion fails, Rule 12(b)(1) assertedly calls for dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Zojo is said to lack standing to bring the lawsuit. Stanley says the "Take Care Clause" of U.S. Const. art. II, §3 is violated by Section 292(a) because that statute "vest[s] the authority to enforce a penal law in a private plaintiff with absolutely no oversight or control by the Executive Branch of the U.S. government" (Stanley Mem. 2).

Because this Court is bound to follow the teaching of the Federal Circuit in this action under the patent laws, and because Forest Group effectively answers--and rejects--both of those contentions, this Court need not await Zojo's response to the motion to dismiss. Instead it will simply quote the relevant portions of the Forest Group opinion.

As for Stanley's Rule 12(b)(6) contention, here is what Forest Group, 590 F.3d at 1302-03 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) says:

The marking and false marking statutes exist to give the public notice of patent rights. Congress intended the public to rely on marking as a ready means of discerning the status of intellectual property embodied in an article of manufacture or design. Acts of false marking deter innovation and stifle competition in the marketplace. If an article that is within the public domain is falsely marked, potential competitors may be dissuaded from entering the same market. False marks may also deter scientific research when an inventor sees a mark and decides to forego [sic] continued research to avoid possible infringement. False marking can also cause unnecessary investment in design around or costs incurred to analyze the validity or enforceability of a patent whose number has been marked upon a product with which a competitor would like to compete. In each instance where ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.