IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
Results for "IP arbitration"
Subscribe to Results for "IP arbitration"'s Posts

Badgerow Enforced: District Court Lacks Independent Jurisdiction to Enforce Arbitration Award

by | Feb 29, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s arbitration award because the district court lacked proper subject matter jurisdiction, independent from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), to enforce the award. SmartSky Networks, LLC v. DAG Wireless, LTD, Case No. 22-1253 (4th Cir. Feb. 13, 2024) (Diaz, Thacker, Rubin, JJ.)

SmartSky Networks filed suit in the district court against Wireless Systems Solutions and related companies and individuals over alleged breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation and deceptive trade practices. The parties entered into a business relationship regarding wireless communications in 2017. The relationship was governed by several agreements in the form of statements of work, purchase orders and a teaming agreement.

After filing suit in the district court, SmartSky submitted an arbitration demand against Wireless Systems. The related companies and individuals voluntarily agreed to submit to arbitration with respect to SmartSky’s claims filed against them. Wireless Systems moved to stay the district court action pending arbitration. The arbitration tribunal found in favor of SmartSky and issued an award, which included monetary damages in favor of SmartSky and a permanent injunction against the other parties. Thereafter, SmartSky filed a motion to enforce the award, and the district court confirmed the award. Wireless Systems and the related entities appealed.

The threshold question on appeal was whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the arbitration award. Wireless Systems argued that the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Badgerow v. Walters dictated that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the arbitration award. In Badgerow, the Supreme Court held that a federal district court faced with an application to enforce or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 or 10 of the FAA must have a basis for subject matter jurisdiction independent from the FAA and apparent on the face of the application. The Supreme Court further held that “look-through” jurisdiction (when a court looks beyond a petition to compel arbitration to the underlying controversy to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists) only applies to petitions to compel arbitration under Section 4 of the FAA, and that such jurisdiction is not available for Section 9 and 10 applications to confirm, vacate or modify arbitration awards.

Reviewing the district court ruling de novo, the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded. The Court reasoned that at the time the parties filed their respective Section 9 and 10 applications, the dispute focused on the enforceability of the arbitral award and not on the issues and claims already resolved by the tribunal. For the district court to find that it had jurisdiction over the contract dispute between the parties, the district court had to “look through” to the civil lawsuit and determine that a federal claim existed. Ruling consistently with Badgerow, the Court determined that “look-through” jurisdiction is not available for Section 9 and 10 applications. The Court reasoned that once the tribunal ordered that all claims between SmartSky and Wireless Systems be arbitrated and the related companies and [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Over My Dead Body: Defendant Can’t “Wait Until He Dies” to Pay Arbitration Award

by | May 5, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s interpretation of an arbitration award, finding that the defendant could not “wait until he dies” to pay a portion of the damages award. Nano Gas Techs., Inc. v. Roe, Case Nos. 21-1809; -1822 (7th Cir. Apr. 25, 2022) (Rovner, St. Eve, Jackson-Akiwumi, JJ.)

Clifton Roe invented a nozzle that disperses gases into liquids. Roe assigned the invention to Nano Gas as part of a collaboration agreement under which Roe received 20% equity and a board seat. The agreement also provided for a salary that was subject to Nano Gas’s ability to raise capital and Roe’s success in developing the invention at Nano Gas’s facility. The parties’ relationship deteriorated after the collaboration failed to produce the desired results. Roe ultimately took the machine and related intellectual property created by another Nano Gas employee and continued developing the product on his own. Arbitration ensued.

The arbitrator concluded that Roe did not have the right to remove the machine and related intellectual property from Nano Gas’s facility. The arbitrator determined that Roe should pay Nano Gas for the financial harm it suffered but also found that Roe deserved compensation for his work on the technology. In his award, the arbitrator indicated that he had initially considered giving Roe a royalty on future profits but declined to do so because Roe was a shareholder in Nano Gas and could benefit financially from the invention’s future success. The arbitrator offset Nano Gas’s $1.5 million damages award with an award to Roe of $1 million and ordered Roe to pay the $500,000 offset “in such manner as Roe chooses.” Roe was also required to return the related intellectual property or pay Nano Gas $150,000.

Nano Gas sued to enforce the award, and the district court entered judgment for $650,000 ($500,000 for the offset and $150,000 for the intellectual property). Nano Gas then filed a turnover motion for Roe’s Nano Gas stock, valued at $117,000. Roe argued that the arbitration award protected his status as a shareholder and allowed him to pay the damages “in such manner as [he] chooses.” Roe planned to pay the award with dividends from his stock and maintained that he could “wait until he die[s]” to satisfy the debt. The district court denied Nano Gas’s turnover motion, finding that Roe was entitled to remain a shareholder and could pay both awards “in such a manner as Roe chooses.” Nano Gas filed a motion to reconsider, and the court amended its order to require Roe to either turn over the stock or identify other assets to satisfy the $150,000 award. As to the remaining $500,000, the district court found that Roe could still choose how and when to pay that portion of the award. Both parties appealed.

The Seventh Circuit first addressed Roe’s argument that the arbitration award entitled him to remain a shareholder. The Court observed that the award did not stipulate that Roe would remain a shareholder indefinitely [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Federal Circuit: Contractual Arbitration Agreements Don’t Bind PTAB Institution Decisions

by | Sep 16, 2021 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an order declining to intervene in inter partes review (IPR) institution decisions by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) and further denied a writ of mandamus to stay the PTAB’s IPR institution pending contractually required arbitration of the dispute between MaxPower and ROHM Japan. In re: MAXPOWER SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., Case No. 21-146 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2021) (Reyna, J.) (O’Malley, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

MaxPower owned patents directed to silicon transistor technology and licensed the patents to ROHM Japan. The license agreement contained an arbitration clause that applied to any disputes arising from or related to it—including patent validity. A dispute arose between the parties as to whether the patents covered certain silicon carbide transistor ROHM products. After MaxPower notified ROHM that it was initiating arbitration under the terms of their license agreement, ROHM challenged the validity of four MaxPower patents at the PTAB, which granted ROHM’s petitions to institute IPRs for the four challenged patents.

MaxPower appealed the PTAB’s institution decision to the Federal Circuit and sought a writ of mandamus to stay or terminate the IPR proceedings without prejudice to later institution if an arbitrator decided that IPR proceedings were appropriate.

The Federal Circuit held that the PTAB’s decision to institute IPR is non-appealable under 35 U.S.C. §314(d), which plainly “confirms the unavailability of jurisdiction” for the Court to hear direct appeals. The Court also found that MaxPower failed to meet the criteria necessary to invoke the collateral order doctrine, which allows appeals from interlocutory rulings if they decide an issue “separate from the merits of the case” that would not be reviewable after final judgment. The Court noted that MaxPower could still raise its arbitration-related challenges after the PTAB issued its final written decisions in these cases.

The Federal Circuit also rejected arguments that the appeals were authorized under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1) and that MaxPower failed to show that its mandamus petition was not “merely a ‘means of avoiding the statutory prohibition on appellate review of agency institution decisions,’” citing the Court’s 2018 decision in In re Power Integrations.

Since the PTAB is not bound by private contracts enforcing arbitration agreements between parties, the Federal Circuit ruled that MaxPower had failed to show that the PTAB’s institution decisions in this case “clearly and indisputably exceeded its authority,” also stating that 35 U.S.C. § 294 does not authorize the PTAB to enforce private arbitration agreements.

In a partial dissent, Judge Kathleen O’Malley argued that the majority decision casts “a shadow over all agreements to arbitrate patent validity” and goes against strong federal policy in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements. While concurring with the majority that the PTAB’s IPR institution decisions are not appealable, Judge O’Malley stated that the case “provides exactly the sort of extraordinary circumstances under which mandamus review is appropriate” in what she called an important issue of first impression. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Sixth Circuit: It’s a Go on Plaintiff’s Claims Despite Arbitration Clause

by | Sep 16, 2021 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed in part a district court’s grant of a stay pending arbitration, finding that as non-parties to the underlying arbitration agreement, defendants could not stay the plaintiff’s action against them by arguing that they were beneficiaries of the arbitration agreement. AtriCure, Inc. v. Meng, Case No. 19-4067 (6th Cir. Aug. 27, 2021) (Murphy, J.) (Guy, J., dissenting).

AtriCure invested millions into developing medical devices that treat a serious degenerative heart condition known as atrial fibrillation. The company sells these products to hospitals throughout the world. In the mid-2000s, AtriCure sought to enter the Chinese market. In order to do so, it needed a Chinese agent. Dr. Jian Meng approached AtriCure about partnering with one of his companies to serve as AtriCure’s Chinese distributor. AtriCure eventually entered into a relationship with Meng’s company, ZenoMed.

In 2015, AtriCure discovered that another of Meng’s companies, Med-Zenith, was attempting to market a knockoff version of one of AtriCure’s medical devices. AtriCure opted to continue the relationship with ZenoMed, and in 2016, AtriCure and ZenoMed entered into a distribution agreement. However, in 2017, AtriCure learned that Med-Zenith was attempting to develop more counterfeit versions of AtriCure’s devices. As a result, AtriCure allowed the distribution agreement to expire and demanded that ZenoMed return its inventory.

AtriCure then sued Meng and Med-Zenith in the Southern District of Ohio, alleging improper manufacturing and selling of dangerous counterfeit productions, as well as various state law claims. AtriCure also brought an arbitration demand under the distribution agreement against ZenoMed. Meng and Med-Zenith sought to stay the federal lawsuit, arguing that they were beneficiaries of the arbitration clause in the distribution agreement under equitable estoppel and agency theories. After the district court denied the motion, Meng appealed.

The Sixth Circuit explained that after the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2009 ruling in Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, circuit courts are obligated to look to relevant state common law to decide when nonparties may enforce or be bound by an arbitration agreement. As a result, the blanket federal presumption favoring arbitration even against nonparties was no longer applicable. Now, courts must examine state law to determine whether nonparties may enforce or be bound by an arbitration agreement. The Court examined Ohio contract law to determine that a nonparty cannot enforce an arbitration clause unless it is an intended third-party beneficiary. The Court rejected Meng and Med-Zenith’s equitable estoppel arguments, finding that under Ohio law, AtriCure’s state law claims did not seek to enforce the distribution agreement against Meng and Med-Zenith, or rely on any theory that they owed contractual duties to AtriCure notwithstanding their nonparty status. Finally, the Court remanded the question of whether Meng’s agency argument could prevail by determining if he was acting as an agent of ZenoMed when he engaged in the conduct AtriCure complained about in the separate arbitration.

In dissent, Judge Ralph B. Guy Jr. argued that Meng “unambiguously sought a ‘stay under Section 3 of the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Ninth Circuit Still Signals Shift in Arbitration Landscape for Non-Signatories

by and | Jul 15, 2021 |

In a decision substantively the same as the now-withdrawn opinion entered on January 20, 2021, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit once again affirmed denial of a non-signatory’s motion to compel arbitration. Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP, Case No.18-35573 (9th Cir. July 7, 2021) (Nelson, J.) (Bea, J., dissenting).

Following the June 8, 2021, withdrawal of its original decision, the Ninth Circuit again found that federal rather than Indian law should apply, this time focusing on the New York Convention and its implementing legislation’s emphasis on “the need for uniformity in the application of international arbitration agreements.” The Court further reasoned that it applies “federal substantive law” in cases involving the New York Convention when determining the arbitrability of federal claims by or against non-signatories. The Ninth Circuit then pointed back to GE Energy, the decision that prompted the initial remand, stating that although the Supreme Court of the United States “specifically concluded” that “the New York Convention does not conflict with enforcement of arbitration agreements by non-signatories under domestic-law equitable estoppel doctrines,” the Supreme Court did not determine whether GE Energy could enforce the arbitration clauses under principles of equitable estoppel, nor did it determine which body of law governed.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that while “a non-signatory could compel arbitration in a New York Convention case,” the facts presented here did not implicate the agreement that contained the arbitration clause. Clarifying its prior holding, the Ninth Circuit stated explicitly that the claims here had “no relationship with the partnership deed containing the arbitration agreement at issue in this appeal.” Repeating its earlier ruling, the Court reasoned that the subject matter of the dispute was not intertwined and thus the doctrine of equitable estoppel was not applicable.

Judge Carlos Bea again dissented on the choice of law issue. Although most of his opinion was similar to his prior analysis, Judge Bea indicated that he disagreed with the majority’s notion that federal substantive law is applied in cases involving the arbitrability of federal claims by or against non-signatories under the New York Convention. Judge Bea argued that there was no basis to make such a choice of law analysis for a motion to compel dependent on whether the plaintiff’s claims sounded in federal or state law, and that whether an arbitration agreement is otherwise governed by the New York Convention is irrelevant to the choice of law for an equitable estoppel claim.

Practice Note: The Setty decision appears to demonstrate a shift in the US arbitration landscape, and parties may begin to see an increase in the use of equitable estoppel theories by non-signatories. Practitioners should keep in mind that non-signatories may use this theory affirmatively to attempt to compel arbitration, but it may open the door to enforcement of an obligation to arbitrate against non-signatories as well.



read more

Ninth Circuit Withdraws Opinion That Signaled Shift in Arbitration Landscape for Non-Signatories

by and | Jun 17, 2021 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order withdrawing its opinion in Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya, where the Court affirmed the denial of a non-signatory’s bid to arbitrate its claims for trademark infringement against one of the signatories to a contract under Indian law. Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP, Case No. No. 18-35573 (9th Cir. June 8, 2021). The Court did not provide any reasoning for the withdrawal but indicated that a new disposition will be filed in due course.



read more

In Setty, Ninth Circuit Signals Shift in Arbitration Landscape for Non-Signatories

by and | Feb 4, 2021 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit tackled the question of whether non-signatories to an agreement may use state law doctrines to compel arbitration. Holding that the claims were insufficiently “intertwined” to permit equitable estoppel and had to be analyzed under federal law (and not state or foreign law), the Court affirmed denial of a non-signatory’s bid to arbitrate its claims for trademark infringement against one of the signatories to a contract governed by Indian law. Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP, Case No. 18-35573 (9th Cir. Jan. 20, 2021) (Nelson, J.) (Bea, J., dissenting).

The dispute arose from a business partnership between brothers. Balkrishna and Nagraj Setty formed in order to continue their late father’s Indian incense business. The brothers signed a partnership deed that included an arbitration provision stating:

All disputes of any type whatsoever in respect of the partnership arising between the partners either during the continuance of this partnership or after the determination thereof shall be decided by arbitration as per the provision of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory modification thereof for the time being in force.

In 2014 the brothers’ relationship fell apart, with each brother starting his own company. Balkrishna Setty and his company, Shrinivas Sugandhalaya (BNG) (SS Bangalore), brought suit against Nagraj Setty’s company, Shrinivas Sugandhalaya (SS Mumbai), for several claims, including trademark infringement. Nagraj Setty was not named in the action. SS Mumbai sought to compel the plaintiffs to participate in arbitration pursuant to the deed. The district court denied SS Mumbai’s motion, finding that only one party to the lawsuit, Balkrishna Setty, was a party to the deed and that the companies, SS Bangalore and SS Mumbai, were non-signatories. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that SS Mumbai could not equitably estop SS Bangalore from avoiding arbitration. In June 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari, vacated the judgment and remanded for further consideration based upon its decision in GE Energy Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, 140 S. Ct. 1637 (2020).

On remand, the Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of the motion to compel arbitration. First addressing choice of law, the Court found that federal rather than Indian law should apply. SS Mumbai argued that pursuant to the deed, the Indian Arbitration Act—which provides non-signatories the right to compel arbitration—should apply. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, finding that “whether SS Mumbai may enforce the Partnership Deed as a non-signatory is a ‘threshold issue’ for which we do not look to the agreement itself.” The Court acknowledged that the deed provided exclusively for disputes “arising between the partners,” not third parties. Thus, based on the federal nature of the claims and federal question jurisdiction, the Court applied federal law, opening the door to arguments concerning equitable estoppel.

Second, discussing SS Mumbai’s equitable estoppel argument, the Ninth Circuit stated that in order “[f]or equitable estoppel to apply, it is ‘essential . . . that the subject matter of the dispute [is] intertwined with the contract providing [...]

Continue Reading



read more

To kill a derivative: Licensee has no post-termination copyright control

by | Aug 7, 2025 |

Addressing a dispute concerning two derivative stage adaptations of Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of declaratory relief, finding that the plaintiff did not infringe any copyright interest in derivative works following the termination of the defendant’s exclusive licensing grant. Atticus Limited Liability Company v. The Dramatic Publishing Company, Case No. 23-1226 (2d Cir. July 29, 2025) (Wesley, Chin, Perez, JJ.)

In 1969, Harper Lee granted Dramatic an exclusive license to create and license a derivative work stage adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird for non-first-class productions (e.g., amateur and community theater). Lee terminated that grant in 2011 under the Copyright Act’s termination provisions, effective in 2016. In 2015, Lee granted exclusive rights to develop and perform a second derivative stage adaptation to Atticus.

In 2019, Dramatic initiated arbitration against Lee’s estate asserting continued exclusive rights to non-first-class productions despite the termination. The arbitrator ruled in favor of Dramatic. Subsequently, Atticus, which was not a party to the arbitration, sought declaratory judgment that performances of its play did not infringe any rights held by Dramatic. The district court ruled in favor of Atticus and awarded Atticus more than $200,000 in attorneys’ fees. Dramatic appealed the judgment and the parties cross-appealed the award of fees.

Dramatic argued that its exclusive right to stage non-first-class productions of To Kill a Mockingbird survived Lee’s termination of the 1969 grant under the Copyright Act’s derivative works exception. The Second Circuit rejected this argument, finding that Dramatic improperly equated its rights in the derivative work with ownership rights in the original copyrighted work. While Dramatic could continue using its play under the original grant, it could not prevent the creation or authorization of new adaptations. Those exclusive rights belonged to Lee and reverted to her upon termination of the grant.

Dramatic also argued that:

  • Lee’s grant to Atticus was invalid because it preceded the effective termination date of Dramatic’s grant.
  • Atticus’ claim was untimely.
  • Atticus’ claims were barred by res judicata based on the earlier arbitration.

The Second Circuit disposed of each of these arguments, explaining that:

  • The grant date was irrelevant because Dramatic no longer held exclusive rights.
  • The statute of limitations did not toll because Atticus’ claim was for noninfringement, not ownership.
  • The claims were not barred by res judicata because Atticus was not a party to the arbitration.

Regarding the award of attorneys’ fees, the Second Circuit agreed that Dramatic’s statute of limitations and res judicata defenses were objectively unreasonable, justifying a fee award, but found no basis for fees based on an alleged forfeiture of Dramatic’s statute of limitations defense since it was properly raised in the answer, even if not included in its opposition to Atticus’ pre-answer motion for summary judgment. The Court further found that Atticus was not entitled to attorneys’ fees for Dramatic’s limited discovery efforts to determine Atticus’ involvement in the arbitration or for the current appeal. Accordingly, the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction over award that doesn’t raise issue of patent law

by | Aug 7, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over a district court judgment confirming an arbitration award stemming from a dispute over royalties paid under patent license and supply agreements. The Court concluded that the petition did not “necessarily raise” a substantial issue of patent law. Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Alkermes PLC, Case No. 2023-2374 (Fed. Cir. July 25, 2025) (Taranto, Hughes, Stark, JJ.)

Acorda Therapeutics, the developer of Ampyra®, a treatment for multiple sclerosis, licensed a patent from Alkermes covering Ampyra’s active ingredient. In exchange, Acorda paid running royalties and sourced the active ingredient directly from Alkermes. Although the patent expired in July 2018, Acorda continued making royalty payments for two years without formal protest.

In July 2020, Acorda challenged the ongoing payments and initiated arbitration. Acorda sought a declaration that the licensing royalty provision was unenforceable after the patent’s expiration and sought recovery of royalties paid after July 2018, invoking unjust enrichment. The arbitration tribunal agreed that the royalty provision was unenforceable after the patent’s expiration. However, it limited Acorda’s recovery to payments made under formal written protest, which only started in July 2020. This ruling relied on a state law principle that payments made with full knowledge of the facts, even if under a mistake of law, are not recoverable unless accompanied by written protest.

Acorda filed suit in federal district court under the Federal Arbitration Act, invoking diversity jurisdiction. It sought confirmation of the tribunal’s findings, except for the denial of recoupment of more than $65 million in unprotested payments made between 2018 and 2020. Acorda argued that the tribunal’s refusal to allow full recoupment constituted “manifest disregard” of the law and offered two alternative theories: the tribunal improperly applied state law in derogation of federal patent law, and the award effectively enforced an illegal licensing agreement. The district court upheld the tribunal’s award. Acorda appealed.

The Federal Circuit declined to reach the merits and instead examined its jurisdiction. Under the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction applies only if patent law creates the cause of action or the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial question of patent law.In its 1988 decision in Christianson v. Colt Industries and 2013 decision in Gunn v. Minton, the Supreme Court made clear that situations falling within the “special and small” second category (where right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of patent law) are “extremely rare.”

Here, Acorda’s complaint did not assert a patent cause of action. The request to confirm the arbitration award could be resolved without judicial interpretation of patent law. The Federal Circuit also noted that even the modification request, although it was premised on the award’s finding of unenforceability, presented two alternative arguments, only one of which involved patent law. Because the district court could have ruled for Acorda without addressing patent law, the Federal Circuit concluded that patent law was not “necessarily raised.” As a result, the Federal [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Well-Pleaded Factual Allegations Must Be Taken as True When Considering Motion to Dismiss

by | Aug 29, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in dismissing a trademark infringement matter under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, ruled that a district court “erroneously assumed the veracity” of the defendants’ assertions over the “well-pleaded factual allegations” in the plaintiff’s complaint. Molzan v. Bellagreen Holdings, LLC, Case No. 23-20492 (5th Cir. Aug. 12, 2024) (Davis, Southwick, Duncan, JJ.)

In 2008, Houston-based chef Bruce Molzan and two partners began the first of what would become a group of five Ruggles Green restaurants. In 2016, as part of a sale of the restaurants, Molzan licensed his Ruggles Green trademarks to Bellagreen Holdings and related entities (collectively, Bellagreen) and transferred the rugglesgreen.com domain name to Bellagreen. Following the sale, Bellagreen changed the name of the restaurants from Ruggles Green to Bellagreen.

Molzan filed a complaint against Bellagreen alleging federal and state trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, trademark dilution, breach of a 2018 settlement agreement in which Bellagreen agreed to cease using the Ruggles Green trademark, and unjust enrichment. Molzan alleged that he had been unable to substantially reduce the internet association of the Bellagreen restaurants with him or his Ruggles Green trademark, even after a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) proceeding (a private, binding arbitration proceeding to resolve domain name disputes) ruled in Molzan’s favor. Although Bellagreen deleted references to Ruggles Green from its websites, the “knowledge panels” for Bellagreen continued to cause confusion in Google searches and Google Map searches for Ruggles, Ruggles Green, and Ruggles Black, even after Molzan requested that Google correct the information. Searches for Ruggles on Google Maps and other online maps as well as Houston First Corporation’s website resulted in results for Bellagreen restaurants, something Molzan alleged would have happened only with the approval and direction of Bellagreen.

The district court granted Bellagreen’s motion under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and denied Molzan leave to file a second amended complaint. In granting Bellagreen’s motion to dismiss, the district court determined that Molzan did not allege any facts explaining why Bellagreen would have a connection to any of the third-party websites or their users. Molzan appealed.

The Fifth Circuit, reviewing the district court’s judgment de novo by accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, reversed the dismissals of Molzan’s federal and state trademark infringement claims, Molzan’s federal and state false advertising and unfair competition claims, and state (but not federal) trademark dilution claim. Because Molzan’s unjust enrichment claim relied on his underlying trademark infringement and unfair competition claims, the Court reversed the dismissal of this claim as well. The Court vacated the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of additional defendants involved in the website design and internet promotion for Bellagreen because the district court erred in ruling on the merits of Molzan’s claims against them prior to ruling on personal jurisdiction. The Court also vacated the district court’s order denying Molzan leave to amend his complaint.

The Fifth Circuit [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES