直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

False Claims of Patent Protection at the “Sole” of Lanham Act Case

October 29, 2024

Authored and Edited by P. Michael Nielsen; Christopher B. Anderson; Sonja W. Sahlsten

In Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., No. 22-2160 (Fed. Cir. 2024), the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s entry of summary judgment and held that false claims of patent protection can give rise to a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act.

Beginning in 2006, Crocs sued various shoe competitors for infringement in a group of cases spanning multiple forums. U.S.A. Dawgs, Inc. and other defendants (collectively “Dawgs”) filed a counterclaim, alleging that Crocs’ description of “Croslite”—the primary material used in Crocs’ molded footwear—as being “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive”—deceived consumers into believing that its competitors’ products are made of inferior material compared to Crocs. In Dawgs’ view, this violated Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act which prohibits a “false or misleading representation of fact, which … misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities” of another’s goods. The district court granted Crocs’ motion for summary judgment, concluding Dawgs’ counterclaim failed as a matter of law because these terms were claims of “inventorship,” and did not mislead customers about the nature, characteristics, or quality of the products.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed. It was undisputed that Crocs’ statements were false because Crocs was never granted a patent on the molded material. The Court rejected Crocs’ arguments that the term “patented” was akin to a claim of attribution of authorship and thus did not give rise to a cause of action under the Court’s precedent. Rather, the term “patented” as used in Crocs’ advertising was directed at the nature, characteristics, or qualities of Crocs’ molded footwear and suggested its competitors’ material is inferior. The Court held that false claims of patent protection on a product feature in a manner that causes consumer confusion about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of a product can be a violation of 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act and remanded for further proceedings.

Tags

Lanham Act, unfair competition, false advertising, summary judgment

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Trademark and Brand Management

Advertising

Related Industries

Consumer Goods and Services

Consumer Products

Related Offices

Reston, VA

Washington, DC

Contacts

P. Michael Nielsen
Associate
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2723
Email
Christopher B. Anderson
Associate
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2765
Email
Sonja W. Sahlsten
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4329
Email

Copyright © 2024 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information

Related Insights

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Virtual Seminar

Patent "Basics" Seminar

May 19, 2026

Virtual

Conference

19th Annual Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation in Europe

May 19-20, 2026

Amsterdam

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP