Innovation Ventures, LLC v. NVE, Inc.
90 F. Supp. 3d 703 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The law of the case doctrine only binds a lower court on remand to legal issues necessarily decided by the appellate court; statements made in an appellate opinion's recitation of background facts are dicta and do not preclude the parties from litigating those facts at trial.
Facts:
- Innovations Ventures, LLC ('Plaintiff') manufactures and markets a 2-ounce energy shot named '5-Hour ENERGY'.
- NVE, Inc. ('Defendant') produces and sells a competing energy shot called 'Stacker 2® 6-Hour POWER'.
- Plaintiff asserted that Defendant's product infringed upon its common law trademark rights for '5-Hour ENERGY'.
- After Plaintiff secured a preliminary injunction in a separate case against a different '6-Hour' energy shot manufacturer, Plaintiff distributed a 'Legal Notice' to retailers.
- Defendant alleged this 'Legal Notice' constituted false advertising, claiming it deceptively implied to retailers that Defendant's '6-Hour POWER' product was subject to a recall when it was not.
Procedural Posture:
- Innovations Ventures, LLC sued NVE, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for common law trademark infringement.
- NVE, Inc. filed a counterclaim against Innovations Ventures, LLC for false advertising under the Lanham Act.
- The district court (Judge Zatkoff) granted cross-motions for summary judgment, dismissing the case in its entirety.
- Innovations Ventures, LLC, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the trademark infringement and false advertising claims and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- On remand to the district court, prior to a jury trial, both parties filed numerous motions in limine to include or exclude certain evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the law of the case doctrine prevent a party from introducing evidence at trial on a factual issue, such as the geographic scope of a trademark's use or the strength of a mark, when an appellate court made a statement concerning that issue in the background section of its remand opinion?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Terrence G. Berg
No. The law of the case doctrine does not preclude a party from litigating factual issues that were merely mentioned in an appellate opinion's background summary and not essential to its legal holding. The doctrine binds a lower court only on 'those questions necessarily decided in the earlier appeal.' The Sixth Circuit’s statement that Plaintiff marketed '5-Hour ENERGY' 'nationwide' was part of its recitation of background facts, not a definitive finding of fact intended to be binding. Therefore, the statement is dicta, and Plaintiff still bears the burden of proving the geographic area of its trademark's first use. Similarly, the Sixth Circuit’s legal conclusion that the '5-Hour ENERGY' mark is 'suggestive,' and therefore protectable, is a separate inquiry from the mark's relative 'strength' for the purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis. Defendant is therefore not precluded from introducing evidence that Plaintiff's mark was weak when Defendant entered the market.
Analysis:
This order clarifies the practical application of the law of the case doctrine on remand. It distinguishes between an appellate court's binding legal rulings and its non-binding recitation of facts, known as dicta. The decision serves as a crucial reminder for litigants that even favorable language in an appellate opinion's factual summary does not relieve them of their burden to prove those facts with evidence at trial. This precedent reinforces that trial courts must carefully analyze which issues were 'necessarily decided' by the appellate court to determine the scope of the mandate, preventing parties from improperly using dicta to foreclose legitimate factual disputes.
Unlock the full brief for Innovation Ventures, LLC v. NVE, Inc.