Dec. 3 – Supreme Court Series: Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. Post Argument Discussion

 

December 3, 2013 | Lecture: 4:15-5:45
Room 603 | American University Washington College of Law
4801 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington DC 20016
Registration | Directions and Logistics Information

Issue: Whether the appropriate analytic framework for determining a party’s standing to maintain an action for false advertising under the Lanham Act is (1) the factors set forth in Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters as adopted by the Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits; (2) the categorical test, permitting suits only by an actual competitor, employed by the Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits; or (3) a version of the more expansive “reasonable interest” test, either as applied by the Sixth Circuit in this case or as applied by the Second Circuit in prior cases.

Steven B. Loy – Stoll Kennon Ogden PLLC, representing Lexmark
Seth Greenstein – Constantine Cannon LLC, representing Static Control Components, Inc.
Rebecca Tushnet – Georgetown University Law Center, representing amicus curiae, Law Professors
Marc A. Goldman – Jenner & Block LLP, representing amicus curiae American Intellectual Property Association
Mary Massaron Ross
 – Immediate Past President of DRI – The Voice of the Defense Bar, representing amicus curiae, DRI

Moderated by: Christine Farley – American University Washington College of Law

Brief of petitioner Lexmark International, Inc.

Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party
Brief amicus curiae of DRI – The Voice of the Defense Bar
Brief amici curiae of Law Professors in support of neither party

Brief of respondent Static Control Components, Inc.

Brief amicus curiae of International Trademark Association
Brief amicus curiae of American Antitrust Institute

Reply of petitioner Lexmark International, Inc.