District Court Holds That Any Failure to Mark During the Damages Period Bars All Pre-Notice Damages

January 17, 2025

Reading Time : 2 min

By: Jason Weil, Rubén H. Muñoz, Shivani Prakash

The District of Arizona recently held that a plaintiff’s failure to mark patented products during the time period that marking was required barred it from recovering all pre-notice damages, including for a period of time when there was no obligation to mark.

Plaintiff accused defendant of infringing patents directed to heat management technology for certain lighting products such as LEDs. During the potential damages period, plaintiff had licensed the asserted patents to a third party that sold products covered by the patents, but did not mark them with the patent number. Accordingly, there was first a time period when the patent had issued but there were no patented products on sale, then a second time period when unmarked patented products were sold. Then plaintiff sent a notice letter and ultimately filed suit. Both parties moved for summary judgment related to whether the marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 287, limited plaintiff’s ability to recover pre-suit damages.

Plaintiff argued that § 287 did not preclude recovery of damages prior to plaintiff’s license with third parties who failed to mark because, prior to that date, there was no obligation to mark. And because it provided actual notice of infringement via a letter a month later, any limitation on plaintiff’s recovery (up to six years prior to the complaint) should only affect that intervening month. Defendant argued that according to the statutory language, a failure to comply with § 287 bars all pre-notice damages. Moreover, plaintiff’s notice letter was insufficient to provide actual notice of infringement because it failed to identify all allegedly infringing products. Thus, plaintiff should be prohibited from recovering any pre-suit damages.

The court first set forth the relevant statutory language: “In the event of failure so to mark, no damages shall be recovered by the patentee [unless] the infringer was notified of the infringement and continued to infringe thereafter, in which event damages may be recovered only for infringement occurring after such notice.” § 287(a). The court joined several other district courts in holding that, based on the statutory language, a failure to mark at any point during the damages period eliminates the ability to recover pre-notice damages. The court recognized that this was a harsh result but stressed that the statutory language is clear. Moreover, as the Federal Circuit previously explained, entitlement to pre-suit damages based on constructive notice to the accused infringer is a benefit, not an affirmative right. And this was not a case where an entity made an unauthorized sale—plaintiff had licensed these third-party sales without requiring them to mark their products. Thus, because licensees had failed to mark at one point in time, plaintiff could not recover damages prior to providing actual notice of alleged infringement.

Turning to plaintiff’s pre-suit notice letter, the court held that the representative products and infringement allegations the plaintiff identified were sufficient to provide notice of actual infringement. Written without the benefit of discovery, the letter nonetheless identified the categories of accused products. Accordingly, plaintiff was entitled to seek damages as of the date of its letter.

Practice Tip: Because a failure to mark covered products at any point in time could cut off all pre-notice damages, it is critical that patent owners comply with the marking statute and require their licensees to comply at all times a covered product is sold. On the other hand, accused infringers facing years of damages should determine whether the patentee (or a licensee) sold any arguably covered, but unmarked products at any point during the damages period.

Lighting Defense Group, LLC v. Shanghai Sansi Electronic Engineering Company Limited, et al., 2-22-cv-01476 (D. Ariz. Nov. 27, 2024)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.