“The Federal Circuit’s holding threatens to turn every expired patent, invalidated patent, and marking mistake into a potential weapon lying at hand for competitors and plaintiffs’ attorneys to wield against them.” – Crocs SCOTUS petition
Shoe brand Crocs, Inc. filed a petition for a writ of certiorari that was docketed this week asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision holding Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act does apply to a party’s false claims that it holds a patent on a product feature coupled with related advertisements that cause consumers to be misled about the “nature, characteristics, or qualities of its product.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued the precedential opinion last October, reversing and remanding a Colorado district court’s finding for Crocs on summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to Crocs against Double Diamond Distribution, Dawgs, Inc. and Mojave Desert Holdings, LLC (Dawgs) that Dawgs’ counterclaim in a patent infringement suit brought by Crocs failed as a matter of law. Dawgs had counterclaimed after being sued for patent infringement by Crocs, arguing that Crocs was liable for damages for false advertising in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, which bars false or misleading descriptions of goods or services, including under paragraph B those who “in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his...
As Minnesota high schools shape and mold their fall sports teams, they’re also forging an important relationship with someone not on their roster: the athlete’s parents. Parents entrust their chil...