Attacking The Pleadings

On April 16, 2026, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a consumer class action against Brita Products Company, holding that a reasonable consumer would not expect a $15 water filter to remove all hazardous contaminants. Plaintiff Nicholas Brown sued under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, claiming Brita's labels for its Everyday Pitcher and Standard Filter misled buyers into believing the products eliminated contaminants like arsenic, chromium-6, PFOA, PFOS, nitrates, and radium to undetectable levels. The three-judge panel, led by Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, rejected the claims after the Los Angeles district court had already dismissed without leave to amend in September 2024.

On April 17, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court's dismissal of a putative class action alleging Target sold 100% cotton bedsheets with fraudulent thread counts. Plaintiff Alexander Panelli claimed he purchased sheets labeled 800-thread-count in September 2023 that tested at only 288 threads per inch. He asserted the label was literally false under California consumer protection law, since 600 thread count is the physical maximum for pure cotton. The district court had dismissed the case, reasoning no reasonable consumer would believe an impossible claim. Target argued the thread count measurement itself was ambiguous and therefore not deceptive as a matter of law.

VDPP, LLC, a non-practicing entity holding expired U.S. Patent 9,426,452 B2 for 3D display technology, sued Volkswagen Group of America in August 2023 in the Southern District of Texas over alleged infringement in Volkswagen's surround-view camera systems. Volkswagen moved to dismiss, arguing that VDPP failed to comply with the patent marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. §287(a) necessary to recover pre-suit damages. The patent had expired in 2022. Volkswagen also noted that VDPP had previously settled with 11 other defendants under agreements that included denial-of-infringement clauses and imposed no marking obligations. In March 2024, Chief Judge Lee H. Rosenthal granted Volkswagen's motion, dismissed the case with prejudice, denied VDPP's request to amend its complaint as futile, and awarded attorneys' fees against both VDPP and its counsel, William Ramey.

A U.S. district court has dismissed FMReps Consulting Enterprises' patent infringement lawsuit against Ford Motor Company, invalidating two patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to unpatentable abstract ideas. FMReps alleged that Ford's certified pre-owned vehicle inspection and approval software infringed its patents covering computerized processes for vehicle certification. The court ruled that the patents merely automated traditional dealership workflows using routine computer functions—dashboards, real-time data displays, role-based access controls, and tabbed interfaces—which does not satisfy patent eligibility standards under Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent.