Let's not get over-excited here. The WSJ article didn't seem to pick up on a June 2010 appellate holding: Someone suing for false patent marking must prove that the patent owner had a specific intent to deceive the public with the false marking. See http://www.townsend.com/Resources/legalupdates/Pequignot_Sol...
True, but a separate ruling says that they have to rule on the merits of the case and that they can't just dismiss for lack of standing as one court attempted to do (something that would've slammed the door shut to these cases).
In other words, they have to actually prove this at trial, which can be expensive, even if they have a fairly low bar to prove that they meant no harm.
