Unsuccessful Patent Claims Did Not Allow Later Malicious Prosecution, Unfair Competition and Antitrust Claims

Case: Fisher Tool Co., Inc. v. Gillet Outillage, 9th Cir. No. 06-55996, 06-56165 (June 30, 2008)


The One Sentence Summary: District court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on malicious prosecution, Lanham Act, state law tort and antitrust claims arising out of earlier patent suit on plier patents where defendant and its attorneys had good faith basis to assert patent infringement.



Ninth Circuit Holdings:

• Summary judgment for defendant on a malicious prosecution claim arising from a dismissed patent infringement case was appropriate where the client relied on advice from an attorney, and where the attorney was not on notice of facts that plaintiff claimed made the patent invalid.
• Summary judgment against the malicious prosecution claim was also appropriate because the attorneys had probable cause to believe that infringement existed. Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 765 P.2d 498, 501 (Cal. 1989). The narrow Markman ruling by the district court did not mean that probable cause did not exist.
  
• Demand letters threatening suit did not allow a cause of action under the Lanham Act because they were not written in "bad faith."
• Antitrust claim was barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine because the underlying patent lawsuit was not objectively baseless.
  
  

Click here to read more.