Supreme Court Ruling Upholds Covenants’ Power to Dismiss Invalidity Counterclaims
Los Angeles, CA (Law Firm Newswire) April 1, 2014 - The Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of Nike, Inc., in a case concerning whether a covenant not to enforce a trademark can reliably moot a counterclaim of invalidity.
But Simi Valley patent attorney Jim Dawson said the ruling affests more than trademarking. “This case almost certainly has ramifications for similar cases involving patents,” Dawson stated.
Nike makes a line of athletic shoes called “Air Force 1.” In the summer of 2009, Nike filed suit against Already, LLC, claiming that their “Soulja Boy” and “Sugar” shoe lines infringed upon Nike's AIR FORCE 1 trademark. Already responded with a counterclaim seeking to invalidate Nike's trademark.
Later, Nike decided to drop its lawsuit. Already's effect on the sales of Nike's shoes was minimal, Nike concluded, but the threat to its valuable trademark was very real. Nike issued a broad covenant to Already, agreeing not to enforce its trademark with respect to Already's existing products or any future “colorable imitations” of them. Then, Nike moved to dismiss with prejudice both its claims and Already's declaratory judgment counterclaim, arguing that the counterclaim was made moot by the covenant not to sue.
Already elected to pursue its counterclaim, contending that Nike's covenant did not go far enough to ensure its safety from future lawsuits and that Nike's trademark prevented Already from effectively competing.
The district court granted Nike's motion. Because Already presented no evidence that it had plans to develop any products not covered by the covenant, it failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction necessary for the declaratory judgment it sought. The Second Circuit affirmed.
The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the ruling, specifically noting the broad scope of the covenant. The court found that absent an extant controversy over a trademark, the federal courts did not retain jurisdiction over the matter (Already, LLC, dba Yums v. Nike, Inc., No. 11-982 (2013)).
The court rejected Already's argument that the federal courts should adjudicate the validity of Nike's trademark due to the “important role [they] play in the administration of federal patent and trademark law.”
“Given that language, it seems very likely this ruling will be applied to patent litigation as well,” Dawson explained. “Therefore, patent owners should retain the ability to dismiss a counterclaim of invalidity on the basis of a covenant not to sue. When drafting such covenants, patent owners should be careful to note the court's attention to the broad nature of Nike's covenant.”
Brooks Acordia IP Law, P.C.
1445 E. Los Angeles Ave. #108
Simi Valley, CA 93065-2827
Phone: (805) 579-2500
Fax: (805) 584-6427
- Trademark Cancellation Proceedings
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) provides administrative procedures for contesting the validity of a trademark registration through a procedure known as cancellation proceeding via a “Petition to Cancel” an already registered mark. This procedure is useful to eliminate an interfering trademark registration or to weaken an opponent’s threatening litigation. It is also useful to cancel a mark that perhaps should not have been obtained and is now being cited against your pending application. The cancellation proceeding is essentially a micro-lawsuit within the USPTO and ...
- An Evolutionary Process: The Ins and Outs of Patent Law
A patent is a “proprietary right granted by the federal government pursuant to laws passed by Congress, which conveys to its owner exclusive rights to a claimed invention.” A simple description surely, but one that’s fraught with twists, turns and pitfalls that make the process of obtaining and defending a patent, particularly one involving an abstract idea, a challenging proposition.<br />
Partner at Brooks Acordia IP Law, PC, Pejman Yedidsion, was quoted in this article:<br />
Read the full article in the ...
- Patent Office Gives Examiners Guidance in Light of Enfish
In light of the Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. ruling by the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has updated its guidance to the Examiners. In it, Examiners are to consider that a claim “directed to an improvement to computer-related technology (e.g., computer functionality) is likely not similar to claims that have been previously identified as abstract by the courts.” The guidance also cautioned Examiners “against describing a claim at a high level of abstraction untethered from the ...