M-Edge Accessories v. Amazon.com, Inc
No. MJG-11-3332, U.S. Dist. Ct. MD, 2015:
Amazon was able to get one of two patent infringement claims dismissed where the Court had no question that Amazon’s book cover did not infringe upon Plaintiff’s patent.
M-EDGE ACCESSORIES LLC Plaintiff
AMAZON.COM INC. Defendant
CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-11-3332
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
January 29, 2015
Case Details:
Plaintiff owns a patent for a bookcover for e-readers with a booklight. Amazon made two bookcovers for e-readers, one with a slot for a booklight. Plaintiff sued Amazon for patent infringement, unfair competition, tortious interference with business practices and false advertising under the Lanham Act. Amazon moved for summary judgment on all claims and Plaintiff opposed this request and further asked the court to exclude the testimony of two of Amazon’s witnesses.
Arguments:
The Court found there was a question of fact for the jury regarding whether Amazon’s bookcover with the slot for a booklight infringed upon the Plaintiff’s patent. However, for the bookcover without a slot for a booklight, the Court found in favor of Amazon and dismissed that claim.
For the unfair competition claim, Plaintiff had argued that Amazon’s use of a “Made for Kindle” (“MfK”) program created unfair competition. Amazon offered an invitation to top-sellers of Kindle accessories, including Plaintiff, to participate in this program. Plaintiff declined because it did not want to pay Amazon the required royalties under the program. As a result the Court found it was Plaintiff’s decision whether to participate and the program didn’t constitute unfair competition. For similar reasons, the Court also denied Plaintiff’s tortious interference claim.
For its false advertising claim, Plaintiff showed the court a print out of Amazon’s website which stated that Amazon was the “official site” for sale of Plaintiff’s product. The Court dismissed this claim because the print out was inadmissible without someone familiar with it testifying as to its authentication, and also because Plaintiff failed to show it was harmed by this statement.
Conclusion:
The Court did rule in favor of Plaintiff in excluding one of Amazon’s witness’ testimony as it was not relevant to the case.