Seoul Laser alleged that defendants infringed its patents
and violated the Lanham Act. Some of the patent claims survived the motion to
dismiss, but not the Lanham Act claims.
The court found it unclear whether Seoul Laser raised a §43(a)(1)(A) or
(a)(1)(B) claim, and, while other courts are more forgiving, noted that “[t]his
ambiguity alone raises fair notice concerns.”
Regardless, Seoul Laser failed to state a claim. As for §43(a)(1)(A), “origin” means the
producer of tangible goods, not the author of ideas etc. embodied therein. The allegations that the sale of infringing
machines would confuse and deceive the public into thinking that defendants’
products were Seoul Lasers were insufficient.
Seoul Laser appeared to allege only that it owned the patents embodied
by defendants’ machines, so defendants were creating confusion as to
inventorship, and that’s Dastar-barred.
The complaint also failed to state a false advertising
claim, which was subject to Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard because
district courts have said so. Here,
Seoul Laser failed to identify a particular false statement or explain why it
was misleading. Tortious interference
claims failed for similar reasons.
No comments:
Post a Comment