FedCircuitBlog

The Federal Circuit issued its opinion yesterday in Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., a Lanham Act case that we have been watching because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a district court’s grant of summary judgment for Crocs against Dawgs’ counterclaim alleging false advertising violations of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Crocs based on Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent it interpreted as legally barring Dawgs’ counterclaim. The Federal Circuit, however, reversed and remanded the judgment in an opinion authored by Judge Reyna that was joined by Judge Cunningham and Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas, who sat by designation. This is our opinion summary.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing the presentation of an “annual Pauline Newman Award” by IPWatchdog that included a discussion involving former Federal Circuit Judge Paul Michel and Judge Newman;
• an article discussing the Federal CIrcuit’s recent decision to revive “a footwear company’s claim accusing Crocs Inc. of making misleading promotional statements about ‘patented’ foam material”; and
• a blog post suggesting another recent Federal Circuit decision “underscores the high evidentiary bar patentees must clear to invoke the entire market value rule, especially for complex, multi-component products.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders.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.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article expressing the opinion that the Federal Circuit’s effort to clarify design patent law in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC “utterly failed”; and
• an article suggesting a Federal Circuit case is “set to shape false advertising law.”

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today with respect to these cases we highlight three opinions in cases that attracted amicus briefs: an Equal Pay Act case, a vaccine case, and a veterans case. Additionally, we highlight two new patent cases, new briefing in two patent cases, and oral arguments in nine cases last and this month. Here are the details.

As we have been reporting, earlier this month the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., in which the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by a judge in the District of Colorado to grant Crocs’ motion for summary judgment on a Lanham Act claim. This is our argument recap.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene 13 panels to consider 65 cases. Of these 65 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 46. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, four cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these four cases.

As we’ve been highlighting, four cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a judge in the District of Colorado to grant a motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim of false advertising under the Lanham Act. This is our argument preview.