Free Compendium of Unreported Decisions - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—01278-KAJ Document 214-4 Filed 10/19/2005 Page1 0f2

Case 1:04-cv—01278-KAJ Document 214-4 Filed 10/19/2005 Page 2 of 2
LEXSEE 2001 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 23374
CLI CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. LUDOWICI USA, LUDOWICI EVHNERAL
PROCESSING EQUIPMENT, INC., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 01-801
UNITED STATES DISTRECT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DiSTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23374; 61 U.S.P.Q.2D(BNA)1288
November 14, 2001, Decided
DISPOSYHON: [til] Defendants motion to dismiss tortious conduct. If a plaintiff bases its tort action on
count V of the cornpiaint was granted. conduct that is protected or governed by federal patent
law, then the plaintiff may not invoke the state law rem—
LexisNexis(R) Headnotes edy, which rnust be preentpted for confiict with federal
patent iaw." Id.
couivsnie ree c1.icoat>oRArion,e1e1ettrr: Eric ix { tpguf ?1‘?":““;S must bitlffiadfd *9 Talgf Ou? f€“‘i{°‘;
Reif, Bryan K. Shreckengost, Pietragailo, Bosick & U Q mu? m cr Emma ,wa usmcss an pm ESSIOM
Gordon Piusbmgh PA rekationships: (I) the existence of a contractual, or pro~
’ ’ ` spective contractuai relation between the complainant
ree LUDOWICT usa, eunowrct Mission. HE"? p““Y}j.;2$1pL¥iI;"S“;’j‘€*;; ?°‘L‘f“ "‘"il;h“ ¥’?‘f‘_"_`; Uff
Paocsssnvo noutrsistvr, inc., aereeaeme; James m.€“ ‘i;f‘f"*°‘; fl? “‘ "“ f { O "`,f"‘i"“¤ ff'
A. Mercoiini, David W. Snyder, Klett, Lieber, Rooney & . Tim., thc ie an d fpmfpic We {6. d IF? {rpm Gam;-
Schorling, Pittsburgh, PA. Joseph Lucci, David R. Bai— n;;’0(£h 2;, Scgcilo [3;;; ES? Gfdugfil ‘“E"2"“f°f“ ti
ley, Woodcock, Washburg, Kurtz, Mackiewicz & Norris, P E CU °m ’ an ) 6 O°?aMOmi]" O ‘iCm‘{_
Philadci hm 1) A legal damage as a resuit of the defendants conduct.
P ’ ' Pnn¤I0w.s/ci 1=. Smorto, 403 Po. Super. 7], 588 A.2n' 36,
_ _ . .__ 39-4O {Pa. Super. 1.99]); Advent Sys., Lid. v. Unisys
Qggggé ROBERT L CINDRKH U“"€d States D‘“ carp., 9.25 1224 670, 672 (sa Cir.]99l). The eempieim
` in this case avers that "LMP has improperly sought to
_ . capitalize upon the market for magnetic separators cre-
OPINIONBY ROBERT J` CINDRICH ated by [*3] CLI by offering for sale, and selling, the
OHNION LM Separators which infringe the 597 Patent." Paragraph
' 43.
MEMORANDUM ORQER As the complaint makes clear, the "absence of privi·
Pending in this patent infringement case is defendant Eege or justification" prong of the test will require resolu~
Ludowici Mineral Processing Equipment, Inc.‘s ("LMP") tion of the patent infringement issue. if defendant did not
motion to dismiss count V of the compiaint, which ai~ breach the patent, it was privileged and justified in mar-
leges tortious interference with existing and prospective keting its products. Thus, the state tort claim is based on
business advantage. LMP argues that this ciaim is pre~ the same conduct that is governed b federal atent law.
.. 5/ P
ernpted by federal patent law. We agree. Accordingiy, it is preernpted.
"For conflict preemption, we consider whether the in accordance with the above, defendants motion to
state law actions frustrate the accompiishment and exe- dismiss count V of the complaint, Doc. No. I4, is
cution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." GRANTED.
Hunter Douglas, Inc. ti. Hnrmorzic Design, Inc., 153 F.3d ._ ( _ .
isis (rea. creraasi. "re determine whether these state SO ORDERED *1*** if diy Oi N°""‘“bf’= 2°°*·
law torts are in conflict [*2] with federal patent iaw and ROBERT I. CINDRICH
accordingiy preernpted, we assess a defendants allegedly United Swiss District Judge