false claims of patent invalidity may be false advertising

Willis Electric Co. v. Polygroup Macau Limited (BVI), 2020
WL 522441, No. 15-cv-3443 (WMW/KMM) (D. Minn. Feb. 3, 2020)
The parties compete in the market for artificial Christmas
trees. (The parties apparently say “holiday,” but come on.) Willis allegedly
innovated in the pre-lit tree category, introducing a “One Plug Tree that was
unlike anything the holiday tree market had ever seen before.” Willis filed a
patent application, and Polygroup allegedly subsequently began selling a
“knockoff design” and applied for its own patent.  (Here’s a video of the Willis product.)
Willis sued for patent infringement and other claims,
including antitrust violations (based on alleged bid-rigging and predatory
pricing) and false advertising. The court refused to dismiss the Lanham Act and
state law false advertising claims.
False statement of fact: allegedly false statements  “about the validity of Willis Electric’s
patents and the functionality of Willis Electric’s products” were actionable. Willis
alleged that Polygroup “told at least one major retailer that its patents in
this area invalidated Willis Electric’s patents,” which is “impossible, because
Willis Electric’s [patents] predate Polygroup’s [patents].” Willis Electric
also alleges that, although its patented design “always has had 360-degree
movement,” Polygroup falsely or misleadingly told a manufacturer that Willis
Electric’s product “is not 360 degrees,” and told a retailer that Polygroup’s
design has 360-degree movement in contrast to Willis Electric’s “original design”
that did not have 360-degree movement. This was sufficient. [Note that lawyers’
statements about patent validity are often held to be non-actionable opinion;
query what “invalidated” might mean in this context.]
Also, on commercial advertising or promotion: Polygroup
allegedly made false or misleading statements on at least five separate
occasions to at least one manufacturer and three retailers. “Significantly,
Willis Electric does not sell to the public directly, and its market generally
is confined to a limited group of retailers.” This was enough at the pleading
stage—though it’s not clear from the court’s discussion that the same false
statements were made to each of the targets.
Defamation: Polygroup argued that the statements about
Willis’s patents and products were subjective assertions of quality.  But “[s]tatements as to whether a patent is
valid, or whether a product includes a certain feature, are not subjective
statements of opinion or general assertions of quality.” And questions about
whether the statements would harm Willis’s reputation in the “sophisticated
buying community” couldn’t be resolved on a motion to dismiss.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/2ui1ZZJ

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 )

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