Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc., No. 2023-1438_(October 2, 2024) (precedential) (3-0); Patent Nos. 10,625,436; 10,639,812; 7,065,936

Key point(s):

• A customer merely being able to modify a product to infringe a patent does not qualify as infringement; A customer must have access to the configurable parameters for there to be infringement.
• Expert testimony that a party failed to consult a third party to evaluate alleged infringed patents is improper, and expressly barred by 35 U.S.C. § 298.
• For damages to be based on entire market value, the plaintiff must establish that the patented features are what drive the demand of the entire product.

Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., No. 2022-2160 (October 3, 2024) (precedential) (3-0);

Key point:

• Falsely claiming a product feature is patented and advertising that product feature in a manner that causes consumers to be misled about the nature, characteristics or qualities of the product supports a Lanham Act false advertising cause of action.

Toyo Tire Corp. v. Atturo Tire Corporation, No. 2022-1817 (October 4, 2024) (nonprecedential)

Key point(s):

• When claiming federal trade dress infringement, the plaintiff needs to specify what the trade dress covers specifically; Failing to properly identify a trade dress is sanctionable.
• Claims stemming from statements and conduct made during litigation are barred by the absolute litigation privilege in Illinois.