Federal Courts is one of those classes that everyone has a tumultuous relationship with. My own professor on the subject continues to vex me by running a rival legal blog. Like Boat News before them, they shall be long forgotten to history whilst IP/DE reigns ascendant. Their name spoken only by those frightened few who stumbled upon their dark and damp remains.
In any event, while issues of federalism, preemption, and the like do not often rear their heads in my practice, they often spawn an interesting opinion when they do. Case in point, Judge Fallon's opinion in Convatec, Inc. v. HR Pharms., Inc., C.A. No. 24-1248-RGA-SRF (D. Del. June 10, 2025). Convatec there brought patent infringement claims along with claims for tortious interference and unfair competition. HR moved to dismiss those add-on claims, arguing that they were preempted by federal patent law. In particular, they claimed that these state law claims "stand[] as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Id. at 3 (quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941)).
Judge Fallon recommended granting the motion, finding that the claims, as pleaded here, were no more than the patent claims in other clothes:
The elements of a claim for tortious interference with a prospective business relation are: "( a) the reasonable probability of a business opportunity, (2) the intentional interference by the defendant with that opportunity, ( c) proximate causation, and (4) damages . . . " [T]he pleading alleges HRHC interfered with Convatec' s business expectation by selling the accused products in competition with Convatec's patented products. Because such sales are covered by federal patent law, Convatec's claim for tortious interference is preempted. The fact that a claim for tortious interference requires elements beyond those needed to state a claim for patent infringement does not alter the analysis because Convatec's allegations, as pled, "rest solely on the conduct of patent infringement."
Id. at 4-5 (internal citations omitted).
In case you're wondering what the claim looked like, its reproduced below (taken from a FN in the opinion):
56. Given Convatec's position as the only party legally authorized to sell the Covered Products, Convatec has a reasonable expectation of the economic advantage of contracting with customers for the sale of the Covered Products.
57. HRH has knowledge of Convatec's expectations regarding its prospective business relationships and sales contracts with these customers, particularly as HRH has been, and is currently, a long-standing supplier of lubricant that is sold together with some of Convatec' s catheter products.
58. HRH's sales of the Accused Products in competition with the Covered Products are not privileged, as those sales infringe the Asserted Patents.
Id.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
