Lack of damages dooms false marking, advertising claims

Gravelle v. Kaba Ilco Corp., 2017 WL 1349278, No. 2016-2318
(Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2017)
Gravelle sued his competitor Kaba for falsely marking its
key-cutting machines as “patent pending” for a time, as Kaba eventually
admitted, and sought monetary relief under the Patent Act, the Lanham Act, and
North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act.
In April 2015, Gravelle sold the rights to his key-cutting
machine to Hudson Lock LLC which sold “between 50 and 85” RapidKey 7000
machines over a year and spent “probably … $30,000 in advertising.” Kaba’s
competing machine had two features, “automatic blade detection” and “automatic
calibration,” marked as “patent pending,” although no patent application for
those features was ever filed. Kaba sold 687 EZ Code machines between 2008 and
2015, continuing to use the false marking through at least September 10, 2013.
In order to sue under the false marking statute, a plaintiff
must have “suffered a competitive injury as a result of a violation” of the marking
statute. The court of appeals found that the district court correctly concluded
that Gravelle did not put forth sufficient evidence to connect the decline in his
sales to Kaba’s false marking of its machine as “patent pending.”  Gravelle claimed that he was “forced” to sell his
rights to Hudson for $20,000, representing a loss of the value in the absence
of Kaba’s false marking. Again, his evidence—his own estimate—was too speculative.
 “Gravelle has advanced no evidence that
he was deterred from introducing or continuing to market a product similar to
Kaba’s falsely marked one or from engaging in innovation in the field of Kaba’s
product, or that he incurred costs in designing around the features Kaba marked
as subject to a pending patent.”  Gravelle
claimed that the features “automatic blade detection” and “automatic
calibration” were “highly desirable within the small locksmith community, at
large, to the extent that same could readily influence a buyer[’]s purchasing
decision.” But that was “too speculative and unexplained an assertion to
support the causal proposition, which is anything but obvious, that buyers
actually purchased the ‘patent pending’ machines over Gravelle’s machines.”  Further, no reasonable juror could find that
Gravelle’s testimony was sufficient to show that the reason Hudson spent
$30,000 advertising for a product it believed would generate $2 million in
annual profits was that the expenditure was necessary to overcome Kaba’s false
This same problem prevented success on Lanham Act false
advertising claims.  Gravelle didn’t
argue for a presumption of injury due to direct competition in the district
court, and anyway this case didn’t involve a two-player market.  Though disgorgement is an available remedy
under the Lanham Act, liability still depends on showing proximately caused
harm.  So too with the state-law claim.

The court of appeals remanded for further fact-finding on
the award of fees to Kaba.  The district
court found that Gravelle’s case for injury causation was frivolous. Though no
reasonable jury could find sufficient evidence of injury, “the question of
whether the evidence crossed the triable-issue threshold was a closer one than
the district court concluded. It is not implausible that in some markets a
number of potential customers, choosing between two similar machines, one
marked ‘patent pending’ and the other not, will buy the marked one because they
think that buying the unmarked one exposes them to the risk of later infringing
a patent of the seller of the marked one.” 
Gravelle didn’t point to enough evidence that this would actually occur
for this particular market.  But
frivolousness focuses on “what a litigant could reasonably believe would
constitute sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable inference of harm caused
by the false marking.”  On this question,
more findings were required than the district court provided.  Gravelle, a pro se plaintiff, was deeply
involved in the relevant market, and he offered his own opinion that customers
“could” be influenced by a “patent pending” marking. “[I]t is not clear that a
person in Gravelle’s position should be charged with understanding that merely
possible influence (‘could’) is inadequate and that ‘influence’ cannot be
asserted in a wholly general manner, but must be supported by evidence, whether
from customers or others, concretely showing how customers would have been
influenced by a marking in the specific market.” The district court was thus
ordered to reconsider the fee award.

from Blogger

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: Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s