Legal Opinion
Unique Product Solutions, Ltd. v. HY-Grade Valve, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided February 23, 2011No. Case 5:10-CV-1912PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
DAN AARON POLSTER, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant HyGrade Valve’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Unique Product Solutions’ Complaint on the ground that the qui tam provision of 35 U.S.C. § 292(b) is unconstitutional. (Doc. #: 12.) For the reasons discussed, infra, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.
I
On August 27, 2010, Plaintiff, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 292(b), filed the instant Complaint as a qui tam relator. (Doc. # : 1.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated 35 U.S.C. § 292(a) by both marking a series of industrial valve products with United States…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States Ex Rel. StevensSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Morrison v. OlsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- United States of America, Ex Rel. Taxpayers Against Fraud and Chester L. Walsh v. General Electric CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1995
- Auffmordt v. HeddenSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Unique Product Solutions, Ltd. v. Hy-Grade Valve, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2011
- Luka v. Procter and Gamble Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2011
- Rogers v. TRISTAR PRODUCTS, INC.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2011
- San Francisco Technology, Inc. v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 2011
- Hollander v. RANBAXY LABORATORIES INC.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2011
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.