Delaware Patent Litigation Report : Delaware Intellectual Property Lawyer & Attorney : Morris James Law Firm : Delaware Patent Litigation Report

Plaintiff and defendant are competitors in the market for package leak testing products.  Plaintiff moves to dismiss defendant's counterclaims of inequitable conduct and tortious interference with business relations.  Defendant’s claims arise from certain communications made by plaintiff to a third party concerning a presentation that was to be given at an upcoming conference by an expert in the field of leak testing in which the expert was to endorse defendant's method as “more sensitive” and “more reliable.”  Prior to the presentation plaintiff sent an email to organizers of the conference notifying them of the infringement action.  Noting that state tort claims against a patent holder, including tortious interference claims, are preempted by federal patent laws unless the claimant can show that the patent holder acted in bad faith in the publication or enforcement of its patent, the court finds that defendant's pleading does not contain enough factual matter to suggest bad faith.  Defendant failed to allege that the statements were made with some disregard for the truth or falsity of those statements.  Even if preemption did not apply, however, defendant failed to plead a valid business relationship or expectancy and an interference with that relationship by plaintiff.  Next defendant alleges that the patents-in-suit are unenforceable due to plaintiff’s failure to disclose one or more prior art references which were known to it during the prosecution of the applications.   Although defendant does not specifically mention intent, it has satisfied the pleading requirements of Rule 9(b), as it states, with reasonable particularity, the prior art reference and instances of fraud to which it is referring.  Plaintiff is on notice of the misconduct alleged.