Rule 11 Archives | IP UPDATE

Off the mark: NPE licensees must comply with patent marking for pre-suit damages

Affirming dismissal of a patent infringement complaint and an award of attorneys’ fees, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated that a nonpracticing entity (NPE) seeking pre-suit damages cannot disregard its licensees’ obligations under the patent marking statute, and that a pattern of abusive litigation conduct supports an exceptional case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285. VDPP, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 24-2226 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2026) (Moore, Lourie, Cunningham, JJ.)

VDPP, an NPE, sued an auto manufacturer for infringement of a patent directed to electrically controlled spectacles. The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied leave to amend as futile. Because VDPP sought pre-suit damages, it was required to plead compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), including compliance by its licensees.

VDPP had entered into 11 settlement agreements that included patent licenses, but its proposed amended complaint did not allege that any licensee had marked its products. Instead, VDPP relied on its status as an NPE and asserted that it had no products of its own to mark. VDPP appealed the district court’s dismissal and fee award.

The Federal Circuit affirmed. Although a patentee that does not make or sell patented products may not have products of its own to mark, its licensees remain subject to § 287’s marking requirements. The Court rejected VDPP’s attempt to distinguish licenses granted through settlement agreements, explaining that a settlement license is no different for marking purposes from any other patent license. The Court noted that all 11 settlement agreements were structured as licenses and that one expressly stated that the licensee had no obligation to mark. Because VDPP could not plausibly allege that it made reasonable efforts to ensure compliance by its licensees, the Court affirmed the denial of leave to amend as futile.

The Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court’s exceptional case determination and fee award under § 285. The district court relied on several aspects of VDPP’s litigation conduct, including seeking future damages and injunctive relief on an expired patent, failing to disclose relevant settlement agreements despite being reminded of them, and advancing positions the district court characterized as frivolous.

The Federal Circuit rejected VDPP’s argument that conduct must independently satisfy Rule 11 before it may support an exceptional case finding. It also concluded that the district court properly considered VDPP’s broader pattern of filing patent infringement suits followed by low-value settlement demands, noting that such a pattern is relevant to an exceptional case determination where adequate evidence of an abusive litigation strategy is presented.

The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal as to sanctions imposed on VDPP’s counsel for lack of jurisdiction. VDPP’s counsel’s notice of appeal listed only VDPP as the appellant, and the counsel’s name appeared only incidentally within a description of the orders being appealed. Corrected notices filed more than 90 days after entry of the orders came too late. The Court also rejected VDPP’s argument that it had standing to contest its own counsel’s [...]

Continue Reading

Bayou Jambalaya: Sanction Motions, Motions to Vacate and Trade Dress Injunctions

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a three-part ruling that affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to vacate as void the judgment based on Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the earlier state and district court decisions were not “inextricably intertwined,” affirmed the district court’s permanent injunction because the district court based it on the Fifth Circuit’s prior decision, and affirmed the denial of a motion for Rule 11 sanctions because the filed motion was different from the Rule-11-mandated notice that was originally served. Uptown Grill, L.L.C. v. Camellia Grill Holdings, Inc., Case No. 21-30639 (5th Cir. Aug. 23, 2022) (Higginbotham, Higginson, Oldham, JJ.)

This dispute arises from three agreements between Uptown Grill and Camellia Grill: the “Cash Sale, the Bill of Sale and the License Agreement. The Cash Sale and Bill of Sale transferred property from Camellia Grill to Uptown Grill. The License Agreement granted a license to Uptown Grill to use certain trademarks and trade dress. In 2011, Camellia Grill sued Uptown Grill for breach of the License Agreement in state court. The state court found that the appellee breached the license and restored to the appellant all rights to the marks. The court did not, however, construe the Bill of Sale.

While the state court litigation was on appeal, Camellia Grill sued Uptown Grill in federal court for trademark infringement. The district court found that the Bill of Sale transferred the trademarks to Uptown Grill before execution of the License Agreement, and therefore found that Camellia Grill’s infringement claim failed. However, the district court also found that the License Agreement limited Uptown Grill’s use of the trade dress to a single restaurant, and the court issued an injunction to that effect. The Fifth Circuit affirmed these findings in a 2019 decision in Uptown Grill, LLC v. Camellia Grill Holdings, Inc., but remanded the issue of whether Uptown Grill’s use of the Camellia grill trade dress at the new restaurant location constituted a breach of the License Agreement.

On remand, Camellia Grill moved for summary judgment that Uptown Grill breached the License Agreement by using the Camellia Grill trade dress after the termination of the License Agreement. Uptown Grill moved for partial summary judgment on the trade dress injunctions, arguing that Camellia Grill lacked standing since Uptown Grill was not using any trade dress at any new locations. Camellia Grill also filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, under which “inferior federal courts do not have the power to modify or reverse state court judgments’ except when authorized by Congress.” Finally, Uptown Grill moved for sanctions against Camellia Grill for “abusive and harassing conduct.” The district court denied both Camellia Grill’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and Uptown Grill’s motion for sanctions. The district court determined that Uptown Grill had breached the License Agreement’s post-termination provisions. The court also decided that the trade dress elements should be limited to that which is protectable under [...]

Continue Reading