“Offer To Sell” Requires Consideration Of Nature Of Intended Product
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.10.06
In Fieldturf International, Inc. v. Sprinturf and Empire and Associates, Inc. (No, 04-1553; January 5, 2006), the Federal Circuit affirms the Unites States District Court for the Eastern District of California's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of defendants (collectively “SportFields”).
Plaintiffs (collectively “FieldTurf”), manufacturers of synthetic turf, successfully persuaded the Folsom-Cordova Unified School District in California to include product characteristics embodied in FieldTurf's patented product in bid specifications for an RFP. The bid specifications also allowed for approved equals upon express approval. SportFields demonstrated its product to and exchanged correspondence with the school district that showed its product differed from the bid specifications. SportFields submitted a bid that was accepted by the school district. The bid did not include an express statement that SportFields product was an approved equal. FieldTurf sued, alleging that SportFields bid was an infringing “offer to sell” under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), because SportFields made an unqualified offer to sell a product that met the School District's specifications, and thus on its face infringed FieldTurf's patents.
The Federal Circuit disagrees with FieldTurf's position that the district court erred in considering the identity of the product that SportFields actually intended to provide, and holds that the district court did not err by “considering the nature of the SportFields product that was intended and understood to be the product that would be installed.” The Federal Circuit also states that the school district was made aware by various means that SportFields' product differed from the bid specifications. Lastly, The Court reversed the district court's findings in favor of SportFields counterclaims of intentional interference with prospective business advantage and unfair competition, stating that “efforts of commercial entities to achieve specifications that favor their product are not illegal, absent fraud or deception.”
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.03.26
Important EU Court Judgment Clarifies Rules on Interest Due in Cartel Damages Cases
In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.02.26
SBA OHA Confirms That the Submission Date for a Proposal with Pricing Controls Size Determination
Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate
