This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion reverses and remands a patent case decided by the District of Colorado. Notably, the Federal Circuit held “that a cause of action arises” under Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act “where a party falsely claims that it possesses a patent on a product feature and advertises that product feature in a manner that causes consumers to be misled about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of its product.” The three orders are all dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.
Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc. (Precedential)
Appellants Double Diamond Distribution, Ltd.; U.S.A. Dawgs, Inc.; and Mojave Desert Holdings, LLC (collectively, “Dawgs”) appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee Crocs, Inc. (“Crocs”). Crocs sued Dawgs for patent infringement. Dawgs counterclaimed, alleging that Crocs was liable for damages for false advertising in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Crocs moved for summary judgment on grounds that Dawgs’ counterclaim failed as a matter of law. Crocs argued that the circumstances in this case do not give rise to a Section 43(a) cause of action. The district court agreed and entered summary judgment in Crocs’ favor. We hold that a cause of action arises from Section 43(a)(1)(B) where a party falsely claims that it possesses a patent on a product feature and advertises that product feature in a manner that causes consumers to be misled about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of its product. We reverse and remand.