Patently-O in the Courts: Tropp v. Conair Corporation

By Dennis Crouch

Tropp v. Conair Corporation (E.D.N.Y. February 28, 2012) Download TroppConair

A federal court in the Eastern District of New York recently justified its holding in a patent case based at least partially on a 2010 Patently-O posting. David Tropp's patent claim against Conair and others was denied based upon the joint patent infringement doctrines outlined in BMC Inc. v. Paymentech, 498 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir 2007) and Muniauction, Inc. v. Thompson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Conair then asked that the case be ruled "exceptional" to justify an award of attorney fees. In rejecting that claim, the court cited Patently-O for the proposition that the line of cases on joint infringement left some amount of wiggle room for courts to find joint infringement absent facts sufficient to support traditional vicarious liability. Based upon potential ambiguity in the law, the court found that the plaintiff's theory of the case had not been improperly pursued, even if ultimately unsuccessful.

Muniauction did not indisputably hold that vicarious liability is the only way to satisfy the control or direction standard. It only made clear that (I) mere "arms-length cooperation" is not sufficient; and (2) vicarious liability, if established, is sufficient. Muniauction, 532 F.3d at 1329-30. At the least, such a reading of BMC and Muniauction is not objectively baseless. See Global Patent Holdings, LLC v. Panthers BRHC LLC, 586 F. Supp.2d 133 I, I 334-35 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (finding it "appears that" vicarious liability is required to satisfy the direction or control test, while also acknowledging that the "Federal Circuit did not explain with any specificity what it meant by 'direction or control'"); Dennis Crouch, MUNIAUCTION: Joint Infringement Requires Mastermind, Patently-O (July 15, 2008) https://patentlyo.com/patent/2008/07 /muniauction-joi.html (opining that Muniauction "left some wiggle room," open space to be further developed by ligation, such that a "later case could still hold that it is not necessary to show facts sufficient to support traditional vicarious liability"). Accordingly, this argument in particular, and defendants' motion in general, depends on an exaggerated view of the certainty and static determinism of the law of divided infringement.

I communicated with Tropp's attorney (and fellow blogger and Princeton alum) Ron Coleman who noted that an appeal on the merits of the case has already been filed.

Of course, the joint infringement (aka divided infringement) issue is being discussed in the halls of Madison Place in the pending en banc case of Akamai Tech v Limelight Networks.

6 thoughts on “Patently-O in the Courts: Tropp v. Conair Corporation

  1. 6

    I totally got first on that thread. :)

    Once the courts get a little more accustomed to citing to PO I would just like to remind them that they have my permission to cite my writtings on 101.

    “but the comments section of this blog is no longer a venue for serious discussion, and has not been for some time”

    Ever since that Humorless Democrat guy showed up and started making trouble in the neighborhood things just haven’t been the same.

  2. 5

    To block what someone post because you don’t like what they say sucks.
    To block what someone posts because it is not appropriate sets a standard.

  3. 3

    Paul, Dennis’ summaries of cases and the law are, as you might put it, “spot on”, but the comments section of this blog is no longer a venue for serious discussion, and has not been for some time. For that, you should try reading the comments at ipwatchdog, even if you think (as I do) that the articles themselves aren’t as well-written.

  4. 2

    Be aware of selection bias in any conclusions drawn from “posted comments.” There is no correlation to “reasonable body of practitioners” that can reasonably be made.

  5. 1

    Very interesting posting and well done!

    If the view is expressed in Patently O or in another blog of similar standing that there is “some wriggle room” and that view is not widely and universally condemned in the posted comments then there is some evidence that this could be a view that might be taken by a reasonable body of practitioners even if it turns out not to be a correct view.

Comments are closed.