Justia Commercial Law Opinion Summaries

The holder of patents on an FDA-approved product that promotes eyelash growth claimed patent infringement and violation of California Business & Professions Code 17200 unfair competition provisions against companies marketing similar products. The district court dismissed the state law claims for lack of standing under an amendment to that law, enacted by the voters as Proposition 64. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. The complaint adequately alleged economic injury caused by defendants' unfair business practices; it is not necessary that the plaintiff had direct business dealings with the defendants.

For many years the owners of the original bridal shop allowed family members to operate similar businesses under the same name. The owners sold one of their own shops and the buyer agreed to pay $75,000 per year for the use of the name and marks. When the agreement expired in 2002, the buyer continued to use the name and marks, without paying. The district court dismissed a 2007 claim under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1117, 1125. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the owners abandoned their mark by engaging in "naked licensing:" allowing others to use the mark without exercising reasonable control over the nature and quality of the goods, services, or business on which the mark is used. It was not enough that the owners had confidence in the high quality of the buyer's operation; they retained no control.

The Tennessee holder of a patent on a pet-access door received communications from a New Jersey company concerning cooperative marketing of a portable pet-access door, but did not respond until the New Jersey company indicated that it had obtained patent 141. The companies negotiated; the owner of the New Jersey company traveled to Tennessee to demonstrate the product and the parties signed a non-disclosure agreement, with a provision identifying Tennessee as the forum of any litigation. When the Tennessee company sought a patent on a similar item, the New Jersey company claimed infringement. The Tennessee district court dismissed an action seeking a declaration of noninfringement and of invalidity of patent 141. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the New Jersey defendant. Only activities of the patentee relating to enforcement or defense of the patent, not actions relating to commercialization, give rise to personal jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action. The New Jersey company's efforts to interest the Tennessee company in its product were insufficient to vest jurisdiction; the New Jersey company's only activities relating to enforcement consisted of correspondence. The suit did not arise from the non-disclosure agreement.