## Facts

- Baden Sports, Inc. manufactured high-end basketballs and owned U.S. Patent No. 5,636,835 covering a basketball design with raised seams and a padding layer under the outer covering.
- Molten USA, Inc. and related entities competed in the same market and sold basketballs marketed as using “dual-cushion technology,” described as a foam layer around the core plus soft rubber seams.
- Baden sued Molten for patent infringement and later added a Lanham Act § 43(a) claim alleging Molten’s advertising falsely suggested Molten, not Baden, originated the dual-cushion innovation.
- The district court entered summary judgment of infringement on a patent claim and tried the Lanham Act claim to a jury.
- The jury found for Baden on false advertising and awarded $8,054,579; the district court denied Molten’s JMOL and new trial motions and denied Baden’s request to broaden injunctive relief.
- Molten appealed the Lanham Act judgment; Baden cross-appealed the denial of a broader injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether § 43(a) permits a false advertising claim based on marketing that allegedly misattributes “innovation” or authorship of a product feature to the advertiser rather than to a competitor.
2. Whether, if such a claim is cognizable, the verdict could stand in light of the trial record and damages award.
3. Whether Baden was entitled to a broader injunction restricting Molten’s advertising language.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed the denial of JMOL for Molten on the Lanham Act claim and vacated the $8,054,579 damages award.
- The court held the challenged statements were not actionable under § 43(a) because they concerned credit for an idea or invention, not the statutory concepts of origin or product qualities.
- Because the claim failed as a matter of law, the court did not reach alternative challenges to evidentiary rulings or the amount of damages.
- The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Baden’s request for a broader, modified injunction.

## Legal Principles

- Under § 43(a)(1)(A), “origin of goods” refers to the producer of the tangible goods sold, not the author or inventor of an idea embodied in the goods.
- § 43(a)(1)(B) addresses misrepresentations about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of goods; it does not provide a cause of action for claims that a competitor took credit for inventing a feature.
- Advertising that implies the advertiser originated an innovation is not actionable under § 43(a) when the dispute is about authorship of the underlying technology rather than misstatements about who manufactured the product or what the product is.
- Disputes over who invented or first developed a technology are governed by patent law remedies, not Lanham Act false advertising based solely on claimed innovation.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that § 43(a) cannot be used to police marketing statements that merely claim credit for an invention embodied in a product; because Baden’s theory sought to remedy misattribution of innovation rather than misstatements about product origin or qualities, the false-advertising judgment and damages were set aside and broader injunctive relief was properly denied.


Baden Sports, Inc. v. Molten USA, Inc., 556 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2009)