Lanham Act Cannot be Used to Repackage Patent Claims

Bright Hand LLC v. Shenzhen Aoya Kuajing Dianzi Shangwu Youxiangongsi d/b/a Mylivell, No. 1:25-cv-11700, (N.D. Ill. May 26, 2026) (Coleman, J.).

Judge Coleman, in this patent infringement action involving an LED “flashlight glove” granted defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Lanham Act unfair competition claim. Plaintiff’s complaint asserted both false association and false advertising. Defendant argued these were improper attempts to repackage the patent infringement claim as a Lanham Act violation. The Court agreed, finding that plaintiff never alleged the use of its marks, passing off, false designation of origin, or any specific false or misleading statement. The complaint merely alleged that defendant made and sold an infringing product, which does not state a cognizable Lanham Act claim. Relying heavily on Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), the Court held that the Lanham Act cannot be used to backdoor patent-type claims absent a source-identifying mark or an affirmative misleading statement. Count I, the patent infringement claim, survived the motion.