1:19-cv-02921
Pawabox Sales Group LLC v. Chargetab
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Pawabox Sales Group, LLC (Colorado)
- Defendant: CHARGETAB (Canada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bradford, LTD
Case Identification: 1:19-cv-02921, D. Colo., 10/15/2019
Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the Defendant transacting business in the District of Colorado, where the Plaintiff is also headquartered.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant engaged in false advertising and tortious interference by falsely marketing its competing disposable phone chargers as "Patented" to dissuade distributors and retailers from doing business with Plaintiff.
Technical Context: The dispute centers on the market for disposable, single-use mobile phone chargers sold to consumers.
Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that prior to the suit, Defendant’s counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff identifying Defendant’s intellectual property, which consisted of patent applications rather than issued patents. Plaintiff alleges Defendant then used these pending applications as a basis to claim its product was patented in communications with retail distributors. This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by the accused party, not a direct infringement suit by a patentee.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017 | Defendant's product allegedly entered the market |
| 2018-09-28 | Defendant filed U.S. and international patent applications |
| 2019 (Summer) | Defendant allegedly advertised its product as "Patented" on its website |
| 2019-09-25 | Defendant's counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff regarding its "IP" |
| 2019-09-26 | Defendant's employee allegedly contacted a distributor |
| 2019-09-27 | Defendant's employee allegedly contacted a second distributor |
| 2019-10-15 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
The complaint does not assert any patents-in-suit. It explicitly alleges that "To date, Chargetab does not have any existing U.S. patents and thus, lacks enforceable rights related to patent infringement" (Compl. ¶8). The dispute is centered on allegations of false patent marking and related unfair competition, not patent infringement.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification: The product at the center of the dispute is Defendant Chargetab’s "Emergency Phone Charger" (Compl. ¶6).
Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint describes the parties as competitors in the "mobile charging device industry" who both "sell disposable phone chargers" (Compl. ¶5). The core of the complaint is not the product’s technical functionality but rather the Defendant's alleged business conduct related to the product.
- Plaintiff alleges Defendant falsely advertised its Emergency Phone Charger as "Patented" on its website (Compl. ¶9, ¶17). Further, it is alleged that Defendant’s Director of National US Sales advised retailers and distributors that Chargetab possesses "enforceable intellectual property" and that they should only buy from Chargetab (Compl. ¶10). These communications to distributors, which attached a letter referencing Defendant's patent applications, are the central "accused" conduct (Compl. ¶11, ¶13).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Other Allegations
First Claim for Relief (Violation of Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)): Plaintiff alleges Defendant engaged in false advertising by representing on its website that its Emergency Phone Charger was "patented" (Compl. ¶17-18). The complaint asserts this representation was false and had the potential to deceive the public and potential customers into believing that competing products, such as Plaintiff's, were infringing on Chargetab's patent rights (Compl. ¶19). This deception is alleged to be material, causing customers to consider working with Chargetab instead of PawaBox (Compl. ¶20).
Second Claim for Relief (Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relations): Plaintiff alleges that at the time of Defendant’s conduct, there was a reasonable likelihood that Plaintiff would receive purchase orders from its prospective customers (Compl. ¶23). The complaint claims Defendant knew of these prospective business opportunities and intentionally acted to prevent Plaintiff from realizing them through its allegedly false claims of patent protection (Compl. ¶24-25). This interference is characterized as improper and a direct cause of damages and losses to the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶26-27).
V. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
As this is not a patent infringement case, the dispute will not turn on claim construction or technical infringement analysis. Instead, the central questions for the court appear to be:
A primary question of falsity and materiality: Did Defendant’s advertisement of its product as "Patented," when it only possessed patent applications, constitute a literally false or misleading statement under the Lanham Act? If so, what evidence demonstrates this statement was material to the purchasing decisions of distributors or consumers?
A key question of improper conduct: Do Defendant’s communications with distributors—in which it allegedly asserted "enforceable intellectual property" based on pending applications—rise to the level of improper conduct sufficient to support a claim for tortious interference with Plaintiff’s business relations under the relevant state law?