» Supreme Court Ruling Upholds Covenants’ Power to Dismiss Invalidity Counterclaims

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

Twitter

Facebook

Google+

  • Patent Reform by Executive Action: Part Two
    President Obama has signed a series of executive actions to implement modest reforms in the U.S. patent system and to protect businesses from abusive patent litigation. Meanwhile, Congress continues to work on broad reforms.<br />
    Our previous post detailed recent progress on five executive actions from last year. Now, we will look at three executive actions that have just been announced.<br />
    Crowdsourcing prior art: The process of determining whether an invention is novel depends on finding relevant prior art. But many ...
  • Indefiniteness as interpreted by the Supreme Court and PTAB
     <br />
    Supreme Court Changes Standard For Drafting Patents<br />
    The U.S. Supreme Court has effectively raised the bar requiring sufficient definiteness be present in a patent application “to afford clear notice of what is claimed, thereby apprising the public of what is still open to them.” In a unanimous decision, on June 2, 2014, the Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s standard for “definiteness” and remanded Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. to the lower court. The Court held that “a patent ...
  • Patent Reform by Executive Action: Part One
    The White House and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are working to implement modest, but important, changes to the U.S. patent system as Congress continues to work through a slew of broader reforms. The White House recently highlighted progress on five executive actions signed by President Obama in June 2013 and announced three new executive actions.<br />
    This blog post will detail how last year’s executive actions are being implemented. Our next post will cover the newly announced ...

See other news sources publishing this article. BETA | Tags: , , , , ,



Get headlines from Law Firm Newswire sent right to your inbox.

* indicates required