In September of 2007, plaintiff Matthew Pequignot “brought a qui tam action…alleging that Solo had falsely marked its products with ‘797 and ‘569 patent numbers for the purpose of deceiving the public, despite knowing that those patents had expired.” In August of 2009, the court granted Solo summary judgment, citing “no intent to deceive and hence no violation of law.” The court also “found Pequignot’s evidence of intent to deceive not relevant.” Recently, Pequignot brought this case to the appeals court and on June 10, 2010, a decision was reached. In the appellate case, the district court’s judgment is affirmed, in part, where the court states, “The combination of a false statement and knowledge that the statement was false creates a rebuttal presumption of intent to deceive the public.” The court vacates its previous decision, in part, stating that “…every falsely marked product constitutes an ‘offense.’” However, this determination is irrelevant because of the court’s decision that Solo did not intend to deceive the public.