article thumbnail

False Patent Marking as False Advertising: Overcoming Dastar

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch The Federal Circuit is set to consider the use of terms like “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive” in commercial advertising can be actionable under § 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act when their use is not entirely accurate. Crocs largely prevailed in those actions.

article thumbnail

materiality/damages requirements continue to make false advertising harder to win than TM cases

43(B)log

TRUSTID lost both patent infringement and Lanham Act false advertising claims. TRUSTID advertised that use of the Authenticator could lead to a 5–10 percent improvement in IVR containment rates, a measure of callers who can have their issues resolved by the automated system without having to speak to a live agent.”

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

accusing someone of patent infringement can be actionable disparagement if you know the patent's invalid

43(B)log

The underlying patent litigation allegedly fraudulently induced Cap Export to enter into a $1.1 million consent judgment, which defendants touted in a press release and advertised on Zinus’s website even after the court vacated the stipulated judgment.

article thumbnail

Judge Noreika Grants Defendant’s Post-Trial Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Reversing the Jury’s Finding of Liability for False Advertising under the Lanham Act and Award of Punitive Damages Against Defendant

Delaware Intellectual Property Litigation Blog

January 5, 2022), the Court granted Defendant Next Caller’s post-trial renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law of no false advertising under the Lanham Act and to take away the jury’s award of punitive damages. The Court granted Defendant’s motion for two reasons. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.

article thumbnail

Dastar bars false advertising claim against "first of its kind" ads

43(B)log

Vericool didn’t help its claim by stating in its papers that “[t]o vigorously defend its patent, Vericool World had to bring this claim.” But “[t]he rights of a patentee or copyright holder are part of a ‘carefully crafted bargain,’ ” and for whatever reason, it didn’t bring a patent infringement claim. Zobmondo Ent.

article thumbnail

"objectively baseless" patent infringement claims can constitute tortious interference/defamation

43(B)log

27, 2022) A rare tortious interference/business defamation case that results in a preliminary injunction (converted from a TRO), based on claims of patent infringement made to plaintiff’s customers. Nu Tsai Capital LLC, NO. 8:22CV314, 2022 WL 15523245 (D.

article thumbnail

Playing From The Rough: Kirkland Signature™ Irons and The Doctrine of Equivelents

Patently-O

TaylorMade Golf Company teed off a dispute over golf club design and filed a patent infringement lawsuit on January 31 st, 2024, in the Southern District of California against Costco and Southern California Design Company alleging infringement and false advertising relating to five of TaylorMade’s patents related to golf irons.