Phoenix Trading, Inc. v. Loops LLC, 732 F.3d 936

Background

Amercare and Loops are competing hygiene product companies; Loops designed a prison-safe toothbrush and bid on NYC-DOC contract that Amercare later won.
Loops alleged Amercare altered Loops toothbrushes, infringed Loops patent, and counterfeited Loops products in letters to officials and press; Amercare filed defamation in WA state court, later removed to the Western District of WA.
District court granted Loops’ anti-SLAPP motion, holding immunity for statements to government bodies and considering media/IAC statements under public-concern framework, with malice lacking.
Patents: Loops obtained a patent in 2008; district court found Loops could not recover monetary damages for patent infringement because of timing and marking issues.
Lead-content and patent-infringement statements to press/IAC were analyzed for defamation; lead-content statements found nonactionable opinions to the press and public, while pre-issuance patent-infringement assertions toward government were not defamatory due to immunity or nondefamatory framing.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the anti-SLAPP dismissal, holding immunity for government communications, timeliness considerations, limitations on certain statements, and lack of malice or falsity for remaining claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Loops immune under § 4.24.510 for statements to government officials?</string>	Amercare argues liability for government-targeted statements should be barred by immunity.	Loops contends immunity applies to all government communications under § 4.24.510.	Yes; immunity applies to government statements, eliminating liability on those statements.
Are Amercare's lead-content and counterfeit/alteration claims time-barred by the statute of limitations?	Amercare contends limitations should toll or avoid dismissal.	Loops asserts two-year limit bars first two categories; later claims may survive.	Lead-content and alteration/counterfeit claims barred by statute of limitations.
Do statements to the press or IAC support defamation despite immunity for government communications?	Amercare argues malice can be shown to sustain defamation against non-government audiences.	Loops maintains those statements are nonactionable opinions or not proven with malice.	Lead-content statements to press are nonactionable opinions; remaining claims not shown with malice.
Did Amercare show the elements of defamation for remaining statements (lead content and patent references) after immunity and limitations analysis?	Amercare claims falsity, publication, fault, and damages are met with malice and public-figure status.	Loops argues statements were opinions or inadequately proven to be false with malice.	Amercare failed to prove defamation elements for these statements; judgment affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

White v. Johns-Manville Corp., 693 P.2d 687 (Wash. 1985) (discovery rule and accrual in defamation claims)
Clare v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., 123 P.3d 465 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005) (discovery rule; due diligence in accrual)
Ollman v. Evans, 750 F.2d 970 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (test for distinguishing fact from opinion in defamation)
N.Y. Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (S. Ct. 1964) (actual malice standard for public figures)
McNeal v. Allen, 621 P.2d 1285 (Wash. 1980) (privilege and immunities in communications context)
Robel v. Roundup Co., 59 P.3d 611 (Wash. 2002) (defamation context and factual falsity considerations)
Corbally v. Kennewick Sch. Dist., 973 P.2d 1074 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999) (public-figure and malice considerations in defamation)
Haueter v. Cowles Publ’g Co., 811 P.2d 231 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991) (context and audience in evaluating statements as nonactionable opinions)
McNeal v. Allen, 621 P.2d 1285 (Wash. 1980) (assertions in judicial context and privilege)
Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 31 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (burden-shifting in anti-SLAPP analysis (California law cited for standards))