Dave Jeffries and Rick Fee Both Selected as “Florida Super Lawyers®” 2012.

Both Rick Fee and Dave Jeffries have an “AV” rating from Martindale Hubble, which is the highest ranking given for ethical standards and legal ability. The Martindale-HubbellR Peer Review Ratings® are an objective indicator of a lawyer’s high ethical standards and professional ability, generated from evaluations of lawyers by other members of the bar and the judiciary in the United States.

In addition, Rick and Dave have been repeatedly named to the Florida Super Lawyers® list, Rick in the area of Intellectual Property Litigation and Dave in the area of Business/Corporate. Only 5 percent of the Lawyers in Florida are selected by Super Lawyers®. Super Lawyers® is a Thomson Reuters rating service of outstanding lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a rigorous multi-?phased process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates, and peer reviews by practice area. For more information about Super LawyersR, go to www.superlawyers.com.

Rick and Dave also have been repeatedly listed in Florida Trend Magazine’s “Florida Legal Elite”. Rick has been selected in the Intellectual Property Rights practice area and Dave in the Business Law practice area. Florida Trend’s Florida Legal Elite recognizes a prestigious list of esteemed attorneys chosen by their colleagues. Florida Trend states that the “lawyers listed here exemplify a standard of excellence in their profession, and by doing so have received endorsement from their peers…” Florida Trend’s Florida Legal Elite represents only approximately 2% of the more than 66,000 active members of The Florida Bar practicing in Florida.

Easy mark no more– False marking defendants fight back

Victimized by a patent troll bringing a false marking qui tam? A review of district court dockets shows you are not alone. Defendants, however, are beating off plaintiffs taking advantage of a favorable 2009 Federal Circuit decision and may soon knock out the action with a constitutional blow.

Under the False Marking Statute, “whoever marks upon, or affixes to … any unpatented article, the word ‘patent’ or any word or number importing that the same is patented, for the purpose of deceiving the public…shall be fined not more than $500 for every such offense.” 35 U.S.C. § 292 (a). The Statute authorizes private plaintiffs to bring suit on behalf of the Government. 35 U.S.C. § 292 (b).

First appearing in the Patent Act of 1842, the False Marking statute became an overnight sensation in December, 2009. Litigation exploded following the Federal Circuit’s decision in Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co., 590 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2009). There, the Court held that the statute’s $500 penalty applies to each “article” sold, as opposed to earlier opinions which imposed for the decision to falsely mark. Id. at 1301. Cue opening of flood gates. In the year before Forest, approximately 30 false marking qui tam suits were filed. The number soared to nearly 800 in 2010. Manufacturers marking their goods with expired patents became an easy target.

Faced with crippling statutory damages, defendants have fought back. The usual defenses, failure to state a claim and lack of personal jurisdiction, have been somewhat successful. Particularly noteworthy, however, are on the constitutional challenges the 169 year-old statute is newly facing. Defendants started questioning whether the qui tam provision of the False Marking statute violates the “Take Care” and “Appointments” clauses of Article II of the Constitution. An affirmative response by two district courts signal this patent fight may soon be over. The Northern District Court of Ohio in Unique Product Solutions, Ltd. v. Hy-Grade Valve, Inc., and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Rogers v. Tristar Products, Inc., both found the qui tam provision was unconstitutional for lacking “sufficient controls” over the litigation by the Executive Branch.

Those decisions are emboldening other Defendants to seek dismissals and alternative stays pending a determination by the Federal Circuit. The plaintiff in Unique Product has appealed, and the Court heard oral argument in July in FLFMC v. Wham-O, Case No. 2011-1067, a lack of standing decision where the appellee also disputed the statute’s constitutionality. Extended stays may be necessary if the Supreme Court ends evasive measures and finally confronts the issue.

Congress has also joined the fray, passing amendments which will redefine the false marking plaintiff from “any person” to the Government and injured competitors. For now, clients should still keep their guard up for trolls and remember the best defense is to patent mark your products carefully.

State’s Legal Leaders, Rick Fee and Dave Jeffries, Named by their Peers.

Partners Rick Fee and Dave Jeffries have been selected for the second straight year by Florida Trend Magazine to its “Florida Legal Elite” for 2012. Rick Fee was selected in the Intellectual Property Rights practice area and Dave Jeffries was selected for the Business Law practice area. Florida Trend’s Florida Legal Elite recognizes a prestigious list of esteemed attorneys chosen by their colleagues. Florida Trend states that the “lawyers listed here exemplify a standard of excellence in their profession, and by doing so have received endorsement from their peers in voting for the 2011 Florida Legal Elite.” Florida Trend’s Florida Legal Elite represents only approximately 2% of the more than 66,000 active members of The Florida Bar practicing in Florida.

See our profile in Forbes Magazine: Forbes Magazine Profile (PDF)