À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Respect de la propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé Outils et services en matière d’intelligence artificielle L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Application des droits de propriété intellectuelle WIPO ALERT Sensibilisation Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Financement Actifs incorporels Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions WIPO Webcast Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Assistant de classification États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Lois Traités Jugements Recherche par ressort juridique

WIPO Lex

WIPOLEX030-j

Retour

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [2023]: TRUSTID, Inc. v Next Caller, Inc., No. 2022‑1433

This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2023 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

 

Session 4: Intellectual Property and Competition Issues

 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [2023]: TRUSTID, Inc. v Next Caller, Inc., No. 2022‑1433

 

Date of judgment: March 1, 2023

Issuing authority: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Level of the issuing authority: Appellate Instance

Type of procedure: Judicial (Civin( �/span>

Subject matter: Competition; Trademarks; Patents (Inventions)

Plaintiff-Appellant: TRUSTID, Inc.

Defendant-Appellee: Next Caller, Inc.

Keywords: False advertising, Lanham Act, Unfair competition, Judgment as a matter of law

 

Basic facts: TRUSTID, Inc. developed a caller identification product known as the Authenticator, describing that system and a method of using it in U.S. Patents 8,238,532 (the ‘532 patent) and 9,001,985 (the ‘985 patent).  Next Caller, Inc. later entered the caller identification market with a product known as VeriCall, sold at a lower price point than the Authenticator.  Both the Authenticator and VeriCall detect fraudulent calls and authenticate those from genuine callers.

 

TRUSTID advertised that use of the Authenticator could lead to a 5-10 percent improvement in Interactive Voice Response (IVR) containment rates, a measure of callers who can have their issues resolved by the automated system without having to speak to a live agent.  TRUSTID’s IVR-containment marketing had been confirmed by extensive testing.

 

Referring to TRUSTID’s IVR-containment marketing, the Head of Sales at Next Caller instructed his team to “jack that stat or make up a number like 8%” for VeriCall, after which Next Caller advertised VeriCall as providing a 10 percent increase in IVR containment rates.

 

TRUSTID sued Next Caller, alleging that Next Caller falsely advertised VeriCall’s ability to increase IVR containment by 10 percent.  At trial, the jury ultimately found in favor of TRUSTID on its claim of false advertising under the Lanham (i.e., Trademark) Act, finding Next Caller’s 10 percent IVR containment claims to be literally as well as willfully false. 

 

TRUSTID further sued Next Caller for infringement of the ‘532 and ‘985 patents.  The ‘532 patent relates to TRUSTID’s caller-ID system, and the ‘985 patent relates to TRUSTID’s caller-ID method. 

 

In its noninfringement arguments, Next Caller focused on three claim limitations, one of which was common across the ‘532 and ‘985 patents.  Next Caller asserted that because VeriCall’s authentication analysis is performed after an IVR system answers incoming calls, it cannot be said to perform its analysis “before the incoming call is answered,” as is required by both the ‘532 and ‘985 patents.

 

At trial, the jury found TRUSTID’s patents valid but uninfringed.  TRUSTID and Next Caller both moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL).  TRUSTID moved for a finding of infringement, while Next Caller moved for a finding of no false advertising and no punitive damages.

 

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied TRUSTID’s motion for JMOL, thereby upholding the jury’s finding of noninfringement, and granted Next Caller’s motion, finding no false advertising.

 

TRUSTID appealed the decision of the District Court denying its motion for JMOL on a claim of infringement of the ‘532 and ‘985 patents and granting Next Caller’s motion for JMOL on a claim of false advertising under the Lanham Act.

 

Held: The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court for the District of Delaware, which found no false advertising under the Lanham Act and denied TRUSTID’s motion for JMOL on the issue of infringement.

 

Relevant holdings in relation to intellectual property and competition issues: The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviews decisions on motions for JMOL under the law of the relevant regional circuit (here, the Third Circuit).  In the Third Circuit, a Lanham Act false advertising claim requires a showing of five elements:

 

1.    that the defendant made false or misleading statements as to its own product or another’s;

2.    that there is actual deception or at least a tendency to deceive a substantial portion of the intended audience;

3.    that the deception is material in that it is likely to influence purchasing decisions;

4.    that the advertised goods travelled in interstate commerce; and

5.    that there is a likelihood of injury to the plaintiff in terms of declining sales, loss of good will, etc.

 

Under the Third Circuit decision of Parkway Baking v. Freihofer Baking Co., 255 F.2d 641, for cases involving monetary damages, the materiality prong requires “a showing of some customer reliance on the false advertisement.” 

 

In the present case, the record contained evidence relating to four Next Caller customers: Capital One, Dish Network, Comcast, and BBVA.  The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that TRUSTID failed to identify any part of the record establishing that Next Caller’s false statements influenced these customers’ decisions to purchase a call authenticator product.  That is, none of these four customers showed any reliance on Next Caller’s false IVR claims.

 

Moreover, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that even assuming, as argued by TRUSTID, that Third Circuit law required TRUSTID only to establish that Next Caller’s false statements were likely to influence customer purchasing decisions, there would still be a deficiency of evidence to satisfy the materiality prong.

 

Thus, because of the deficiency in proof to establish materiality, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision finding no Lanham Act violation under Third Circuit law.

 

Concerning TRUSTID’s motion for JMOL on the issue of patent infringement, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with the District Court’s reasoning that, although there was conflicting testimony, the jury “was free to credit the evidence presented that the ‘call’ was no longer an ‘incoming call’ once it was answered by the IVR.”

                                                                                      

Relevant legislation:

Section 43 of the Lanham Act (Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(a))