Pequignot lacks standing under Article III of the Constitution, either as a traditional plaintiff or as a qui tarn relator. 1. Construction of 35 U.S.C. § 292(b). Solo urges the Court to avoid the constitutional question by construing § 292(b) narrowly. Under this narrow construction, a suit by a plaintiff like Pequignot, who is not a competitor of the company alleged to have engaged in false patent marking, would be barred. Solo supports this argument by citing to several decisions that have restricted false advertising suits under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), to actions by competitors. Solo argues that the Court should adopt a similar limiting construction of § 292(b). See, e.g., Made in the USA Found, v. Phillips Foods, Inc., 365 F.3d 278, 281 (4th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). It is a “cardinal principle” that a court
holding that suits under 42 usc  1983 do not override state immunity holding that 18 usc  1963d1a does not authorize preconviction restraints on substitute assets recognizing that the section does not  authorize suits for cancellation in the district courts holding that 15 usc  1125a does not authorize suits by consumers holding that fcra explicitly precludes private suits for failure to comply with  16812a  15 usc  1681s2c and instead provides for enforcement of that provision by federal and state officials 15 usc  1681s2d