Lexmark injury requirement no bar to competitor’s standing at pleading stage

Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., 2017 WL 1229707,  No. 06–cv–00605 (D. Colo. Mar. 31, 2017)
Crocs sued Effervescent for patent infringement; in 2006,
defendants moved to stay the case pending ITC proceedings.  In 2015, defendant Dawgs moved to reopen the
case and lift the stay, and filed counterclaims.
The parties compete in the market for molded clogs. Dawgs
alleged that “[e]ach and every functional feature disclosed” in Crocs’ utility patent  application already existed in the market,
and that its design patent was also substantially similar to existing designs. Crocs
has allegedly been unable to secure patents similar to these patents outside
the United States because of the “well-known existence of prior sales, the
widely-recognized existence of invalidating prior art, and the established
identity of the true and proper inventorship and origin of the shoe.”
Just after the utility patent issued, Crocs filed a
complaint with the ITC a number of respondents, alleging infringement and
seeking a General Exclusion Order to ban the importation of molded clogs that
infringed on Crocs’ patents. The ITC initially found that the utility patent was
invalid as obvious in view of prior art, but the Federal Circuit (of course)
reversed and remanded, and the ITC then found that the respondents didn’t show
unenforceability. Defendant Dawgs filed an application for inter partes reexamination
of the design patent in 2012; the PTO found that it was unpatentable.

The court rejected most of Dawgs’ counterclaims (inequitable
conduct in patenting, monopolization, attempted monopolization, conspiracy to
restrain trade/exclusionary conduct, intentional interference with business
advantage), but allowed a false advertising claim to proceed.  Crocs allegedly misled consumers by claiming
that its footwear was “made of an exclusive and proprietary closed-cell resin
that they call ‘Croslite.’ ” However, “Croslite” was in fact ethyl vinyl
acetate, which is used by footwear companies around the world, including Dawgs.
Crocs’ promotional materials refer to “our patented CrosliteTM material” and “our
proprietary CrosliteTM material,” and claim that Croslite is a “revolutionary
technology,” though “Crocs does not own any exclusive proprietary or patent
rights to the material from which its footwear is made.” Thus, consumers were
allegedly deceived into concluding that the products sold by Dawgs are “made of
inferior material compared to Crocs’ molded footwear.” Crocs argued that Dawgs failed
to allege standing under the Lanham Act or a cognizable injury that was
proximately caused by the alleged Lanham Act violation, but Lexmark didn’t foreclose Dawgs’ claim at
the pleading stage. Dawgs fit within the zone of interests of the Lanham Act
because it was a direct competitor with Crocs who alleged an injury to
reputation or sales, and alleged that Crocs’ purportedly false descriptions of
Croslite had caused or would cause “a loss of consumer confidence, sales,
profits, and goodwill.” These injuries “flow[ ] directly from the deception.” Though
it would ultimately need to provide evidence of injury proximately caused by
the alleged misrepresentations, Dawgs was “entitled to a chance to prove its
case” under Lexmark.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/2oIwqDq

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s