Puritan Medical Products Company, LLC v. Copan Italia
CUMbcd-cv-15-064
Me. Super. CtApr 27, 2017Background
- Puritan Medical Products (Maine manufacturer) and Copan Italia (international manufacturer) both make flocked swabs and compete in the same market; Copan holds multiple patents on flocked-swab technology and has produced swabs since 2003.
- Puritan began selling flocked swabs circa 2010–2011 and developed allegedly different products (bicomponent fibers, splayed ends, different Dtex, unordered fibers); Puritan also applied for its own patents.
- Copan investigated Puritan’s products, sent letters to distributors and potential buyers (including GE Healthcare and the French Gendarmerie) asserting possible infringement and citing specific patent numbers, and brought infringement litigation in Germany (winning at least one utility-model claim).
- Puritan sued in Maine under 14 M.R.S. § 8701 alleging Copan made a bad-faith assertion of patent infringement; Copan moved for summary judgment.
- The Maine Business & Consumer Court had to decide (1) whether federal patent law preempted the state claim (subject-matter jurisdiction), and (2) whether Copan’s conduct satisfied the statutory elements of a bad-faith assertion under § 8701.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal patent law preempts Puritan’s state-law bad-faith claim | Puritan asserts state statute claims that can be adjudicated in state court | Copan contends patent issues are inherently federal and outside state jurisdiction | Court: No preemption — claim does not necessarily require resolving substantive patent-law questions; state court retains jurisdiction |
| Whether Copan made a bad-faith assertion of patent infringement under 14 M.R.S. § 8701 | Puritan argues Copan knowingly asserted meritless infringement and engaged in abusive enforcement (letters to customers, Germany suit) | Copan argues it provided required information, investigated, negotiated in good faith, and invested substantially in the patented technology | Court: Copan entitled to summary judgment — Puritan failed to show bad faith; statutory factors favor Copan |
| Adequacy of Copan’s demand letters (information required by § 8701) | Puritan implies letters were inadequate or deceptive | Copan’s letters included patent numbers, owner information, and specific factual allegations; no demand for license fees or unreasonable deadlines | Court: Letters satisfied § 8701(3)(A)(1) and weighed against bad faith |
| Whether prior litigation or expert testing demonstrated meritlessness of Copan’s assertions | Puritan points to disputes over testing and challenges to Copan’s patents | Copan points to German proceedings (wins) and expert analyses that supported Copan’s view | Court: Evidence does not show assertions were meritless; German rulings and investigations support Copan’s position |
Key Cases Cited
- Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (holding that not every case mentioning patents raises federal patent-law jurisdiction)
- ClearPlay, Inc. v. Max Abecassis, 602 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (state-law claims are preempted only when patent law is essential to every theory of relief)
- Dyer v. Dep’t of Transp., 951 A.2d 821 (Me. 2008) (summarizing Maine summary-judgment standards)