Clontech Laboratories, Inc. v. Invitrogen Corp. (Formerly Life Technologies, Inc.)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a plaintiff must show that a defendant “did not have an honest good faith belief in marking its products”
• concluding that DTPA claims were preempted by federal patent law following a bench trial because the plaintiff “failed to come forward with evidence of bad faith[.]”
• observing that \the act of false marking” improperly places the \the risk of error in the determination ... on the public rather than the manufacturer or seller of the article”
• stating that false marking claims require showing that “the party accused of false marking did not have a reasonable belief that the articles were properly marked (i.e., covered by a patent.”
• “[T]he standard is whether ... [defendant] did not have an honest good faith belief in marking its products”
• “When the statute refers to an ‘unpatented article’ the statute means that the article in question is not covered by at least one claim of each patent with which the article is marked.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).