top of page

Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 19, 2020)

Cessation of the sale of products that are patented but unmarked by the licensee (Honda) does excuse the patentee (Artic Cat) from the marking requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. 287 which is required for recovery of damages.

Moreover, actual notice under 35 USC 287 cannot be inferred from willful infringement (or the knowledge of a patent or infringement). Rather, actual notice is established by the performance of the patentee.

Read the case here.

Recent Posts

See All

U.S. Supreme Court opinion of Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi

Post by Paul Serbinowski What must the specification disclose to enable broad functional claim language? A week ago in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the U.S. Supreme Court considered what the specification mu


Commenting has been turned off.
bottom of page