3M Innovative Properties Co. v. Dupont Dow Elastomers LLC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “a presumption of causation and injury” is proper “in the context of comparative advertisements specifically targeting the plaintiff's product”
• finding no evidence of causation where “[plaintiff] has not accounted for customer purchasing decisions that were made for reasons other than the challenged advertising”
• finding insufficient causation evidence because the plaintiff’s expert’s calculations relied solely on the assumption that false advertising caused the plaintiff’s lost profits
• “The Eighth Circuit requires the plaintiff to prove causation in fact in a non-comparative advertising case.”
• evidence of public use defense was too intertwined with inequitable conduct defense evidence to allow for separate trials
• “Materiality . . . considers whether the false or misleading statement is likely to make a difference to purchasers.” (internal quotation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).