close

For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Nearly 15 percent of Fenwick partners named America's Leading Lawyers for Business by Chambers USA and Chambers Global
  • Selected as a "Go-To" law firm by in-house legal departments at Fortune 500 companies in Corporate Counsel magazine
  • Named to The National Law Journal's inaugural "Intellectual Property Hot List" for outstanding patent, copyright, trademark and IP litigation services

MORE >

We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650.988.8500

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.875.2300

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
206.389.4510

Shanghai Office
36/F, Room 3690, Tower 2
Shanghai IFC
8 Century Avenue, Pudong
Shanghai 200120, China
+86 21 6062 6104

PUBLICATION DETAILS

Just Moot It: Supreme Court in Already v. Nike Clarifies When a Covenant Not to Sue Can Kill a Declaratory Judgment Case

January 14, 2013

In 2007, the Supreme Court in MedImmune v. Genentech broadened the scope of declaratory judgment jurisdiction, making it easier for parties fearing IP claims to bring defensive lawsuits. Last week, the Court made it easier for IP owners to end them.

In Already, LLC, dba Yums, v. Nike Inc., 586 U.S. ___; No. 11-982, 2013 WL 85300 (January 9, 2013), a trade dress case involving an athletic shoe design, the Court issued a unanimous decision clarifying the applicable legal standard for dismissing a case as moot where the defendant has voluntarily ceased the alleged wrongful behavior. The case started when Nike sued Yums for infringing its trade dress in its Air Force 1 shoe. After Yums filed a counterclaim to invalidate Nike’s trade dress registration, Nike decided it wanted out. It dismissed its claims, and provided Yums a covenant not to sue it in the future. Nike then moved to dismiss the case, arguing that there was no longer any “case or controversy,” and thus, no subject matter jurisdiction.

In affirming dismissal of a counterclaim for declaratory judgment, the Supreme Court found that a broad covenant not to sue can render a case moot, removing Article III standing. The Court clarified that such cases are analyzed under the “voluntary cessation” doctrine, and that a defendant hoping to rely on such tactic will bear a heavy burden of showing that it is “absolutely clear” the allegedly wrongful behavior will not recur.

Although this opinion provides practical guidance on drafting a covenant not to sue sufficient to defeat subject matter jurisdiction, parties considering such a move must carefully consider broader ramifications.

Background
Nike originally filed the lawsuit in federal court in the Southern District of New York, alleging that Yums’ “Soulja Boys” and “Sugars” shoe lines infringed and diluted Nike’s “Air Force 1” trade dress. Yums denied the allegations and filed a counterclaim contending that the Air Force 1 trade dress registration was invalid. Several months later, after settlement discussions, Nike issued a covenant not to sue, promising that Nike would not raise trademark or unfair competition claims based on any of Yums’ existing footwear designs, or any colorable imitations thereof. Nike then moved to dismiss its own claims and Yums’ invalidity counterclaim.

The district court granted Nike’s motion. Construing the covenant broadly, the district court found that Yums lacked Article III standing to pursue its declaratory judgment counterclaim. The Second Circuit affirmed, finding it hard to conceive of a shoe that would infringe the Air Force 1 trademark yet not fall within the scope of the covenant. Yums appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in June 2012.

Mootness and Voluntary Cessation
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Article III of the Constitution requires that an actual controversy exist not only at the time that the complaint is filed, but through all stages of the litigation. A case becomes moot, and thus no longer a “case or controversy,” when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.

The Court recognized, however, that a defendant cannot simply moot a case by ceasing the disputed conduct once it is challenged in court. Otherwise, a party could simply stop unlawful conduct when sued, and pick up again when the case is declared moot. Instead, when a party claims that its voluntary compliance moots a case, the Court applies the “voluntary cessation” doctrine. Under this doctrine, a defendant claiming that its voluntary termination of conduct moots a case “bears the formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.”

Nike's Covenant Not to Sue
Applying the voluntary cessation doctrine, the Court found that Nike’s covenant met the heavy burden imposed by the voluntary cessation test. First, the covenant was unconditional and irrevocable; Nike could not simply change its mind and pursue Yums in the future. Second, the covenant prohibited Nike from not only filing suit, but also from making any claim or any demand. Thus, Yums was protected not only against future lawsuits, but other cease and desist letters, demands or threats that might place a cloud over its business activities. Third, the covenant reached beyond Yums to protect Yums’ distributors and customers, protecting Yums from “downstream” IP claims. Fourth, the covenant covered not just current or previous designs, but any colorable imitations of those designs – thus protecting Yums’ going forward.

In considering whether Nike met its burden, the Court also noted that Yums—despite ample opportunity to do so at all levels of the proceedings—had failed to identify any evidence of current or future shoe designs that would expose it to the prospect of infringement liability yet not be covered by the covenant: “If such a shoe exists, the parties have not pointed to it, there is no evidence that [Yums] has dreamt of it, and we cannot conceive of it. It sits, as far as we can tell, on a shelf between Dorothy’s ruby slippers and Perseus’s winged sandals.”

Based on the language of the covenant not to sue and Yums’ failure to show any evidence of a potentially infringing product, the Court found that the case was moot because the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur.

Alternate Theories of Articles III Injury and Policy Consideration
The Court also considered and rejected three alternative theories of Article III injury as insufficient to establish standing. First, Yums argued that as long as Nike remained free to assert its trademark, investors would be apprehensive about investing. The Court disagreed, finding that such investor decisions would be based on conjecture, which does not give rise to a “concrete” and “actual” injury necessary to establish Article III standing.

Second, Yums argued that, given Nike’s decision to sue in the first place, Nike’s trademarks would hang over Yums’ operations “like a Damoclean sword” and that Nike might interfere with its distributors and customers. The Court rejected this argument on the grounds that the hypothetical misconduct would either be barred by the covenant, or was unrelated to Nike’s trademark and would not be prevented by its invalidation.

Third, Yums made the sweeping argument that, as one of Nike’s competitors, it inherently had standing to challenge Nike’s intellectual property. The Court summarily rejected the premise that a market participant is injured for Article III purposes whenever a competitor benefits from something allegedly unlawful.

Fourth, the Court observed that, in the trademark context, covenants not to sue may be a risky long-term strategy for trademark holders, given that widespread use of a mark by third parties may be evidence of a lack of likelihood of confusion in future litigations, and because uncontrolled, or “naked,” licensing may result in a loss of trademark rights. Thus, the concern that the case allowed Nike and other brand owners to bully small innovators was unfounded. The Court observed that adopting the position advocated by Yums, while benefitting the smaller competitor here, would actually enable larger companies with more resources to challenge the intellectual property portfolios of smaller competitors, thus enabling companies to “employ litigation as a weapon against their competitors rather than as a last resort for settling disputes.”

Takeaways
This case provides helpful clarification that the “voluntary cessation” doctrine is alive and well, and that a party claiming that its change of conduct has mooted a case will bear a very heavy burden. In the intellectual property context, the case makes clear that a properly crafted covenant not to sue remains a viable option to end a declaratory judgment lawsuit. While this situation arises relatively rarely, the ability to terminate a lawsuit, rather than face ongoing litigation expenses or a uniquely bad outcome, may be a useful tool for IP owners managing broad portfolios or enforcement programs.

Nike’s covenant not to sue, now blessed at the Supreme Court, will likely become the gold standard against which courts will scrutinize future covenants. Such agreements are more likely to survive scrutiny where they (1) are irrevocable and unconditional, (2) apply to all demands, not just lawsuits, (3) protect downstream customers, and (4) cover not just past and present conduct, but future infringement as well.

While a covenant not to sue that meets these requirements is likely to satisfy the “voluntary cessation” doctrine, Intellectual property owners should careful consider the broader implications of such covenants, and should bear in mind the potential risks and consequences to their IP rights.

As for Yums and similarly situated plaintiffs, this decision does not eliminate all recourse. A party claiming harm from a trademark registration may challenge it by pursuing opposition or cancellation proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Likewise, parties may seek inter partes review or ex parte reexamination of patents. But this case reaffirms the core principle that federal courts are reserved for disputes over actual injuries.

Related Content