J.R. Simplot Co. has filed a patent infringement suit against McCain Foods USA, Inc. alleging McCain copied Simplot’s twisted potato fries product, Sidewinders®. J.R. Simplot Co. v. McCain Foods USA, Inc., No. 16-0449 (D. Idaho, filed October 7, 2016). Simplot asserts that its patent, “Spiral Potato Piece,” covers the ornamental features of Sidewinders®, including its “inherently distinctive and nonfunctional” shape, and that side-by-side comparisons indicate “McCain copied Simplot’s patented Sidewinders® design in developing its Twisted Potato products.” Simplot alleges patent and trade dress infringement and seeks damages, an injunction and attorney’s fees. Issue 619
Category Archives 9th Circuit
A California federal court has dismissed a lawsuit alleging the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) allowed the American Egg Board to unduly influence the government’s nutrition advice on dietary cholesterol. Physicians Comm. for Responsible Med. v. Vilsack, No. 16-0069 (N.D. Cal., San Francisco Div., order entered October 12, 2016). Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) filed the lawsuit following a change to the 2015 Dietary Guidelines that removed the recommended limit of 300 milligrams per day of dietary cholesterol; instead, the guidelines recommended consuming “as little dietary cholesterol as possible while consuming a healthy eating pattern.” PCRM alleged that the advisory body’s analysis and recommendations were compromised by the presence of scientists who had received funding from the American Egg Board or Egg Nutrition Center. The court assessed whether it had subject matter jurisdiction to consider PCRM’s claim by examining the underlying statutes…
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a grant of summary judgment to Dole Packaged Foods in a lawsuit alleging the company misleads consumers by labeling its packaged fruit products as “all natural” in violation of California consumer-protection statutes. Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, No. 12-1831 (9th Cir., order entered September 30, 2016). The appeals court reviewed the evidence before it—including the plaintiff’s testimony that the “all natural” label deceived him, the label itself, Dole’s consumer surveys and U.S. Food and Drug Administration warning letters—and found that “this evidence could allow a trier of fact to conclude that Dole’s description of its products as ‘All Natural Fruit’ is misleading to a reasonable consumer.” Accordingly, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case to the district court. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of claims alleging Dole sold “illegal products.” The plaintiff “seems to be…
A consumer has filed a putative class action against Dave’s Gourmet, Inc. alleging the company deceives its customers by listing evaporated cane juice (ECJ) on its sauce labels rather than the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) preferred term, sugar. Kazemi v. Dave’s Gourmet, Inc., No. 16-5269 (N.D. Cal., filed September 14, 2016). The complaint asserts that the plaintiff and other members of the putative class “would have paid less for the Products or would not have purchased the Products had they known that the Products’ listing of ECJ as an ingredient claim was false, misleading, and deceptive.” For alleged violations of California’s and Florida’s consumer-protection statutes, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctions, restitution, damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 618
A California federal court has denied the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by several activist groups challenging aspects of the Organic Food Production Act’s sunset provision, which governs when substances are removed from the National List. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 15-1590 (N.D. Cal., order entered September 8, 2016). The plaintiffs objected to how USDA changed the process to remove a substance from the List, which documents permitted synthetic substances and prohibited non-synthetic substances in the production of organic food. Details about the complaint appear in Issue 561 of this Update. The court first determined that the plaintiff groups had standing to sue, then considered whether it had subject matter jurisdiction. USDA argued the sunset notice changes were not part of a final agency action, but the court determined the question of jurisdiction and the merits of the action were so intertwined…
Two consumers have filed a lawsuit against Subway Sandwich Shops Inc. and T-Mobile USA Inc. alleging the companies sent unsolicited text messages advertising an offer for a free sandwich without first obtaining written consent from the recipients. Rahmany v. T-Mobile USA Inc., No. 16-1416 (W.D. Wash., filed September 6, 2016). The complaint asserts that the plaintiffs each received an unsolicited text on September 1, 2016, advertising a free 6-inch chicken sandwich from Subway, with a link to download the T-Mobile app for additional details. T-Mobile sent the message with an automatic telephone dialing system “with the consent and encouragement of Subway for the purposes of financial gain in a mutually beneficial relationship between those two companies,” the plaintiffs allege. For alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the plaintiffs seek $500 per negligent violation and $1,500 per knowing or willful violation. Issue 616
A California federal court has granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. misleadingly advertises its food as free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) despite allegedly selling flour and corn tortillas with GMOs, using GMO soy in its cooking oils and serving meat and dairy products derived from animals fed GMO feed. Pappas v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., No. 16-0612 (S.D. Cal., order entered August 31, 2016). Chipotle argued that reasonable consumers would not “equate ‘nonGMO ingredients’ with ingredients not derived from animals that have eaten genetically modified feed.” The plaintiff argued that the reasonable consumer standard was not applicable at the motion-to-dismiss stage in a fraud or deception case, but the court found that the standard could be used to hold the plaintiff’s allegations to be implausible. The court compared the plaintiff’s meat and dairy allegations to a case…
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that EN-R-G Foods’ Honey Stinger Gluten Free Organic Maple Waffles do not contain maple syrup as implied by the product’s name and packaging. Johnson v. EN-R-G Foods, No. 6258 (C.D. Cal., filed August 19, 2016). The waffle package features “a prominent image of a maple leaf and maple syrup splashed on the waffle,” leading consumers to believe that the product ingredients include maple syrup, the plaintiff asserts. For allegations of fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment and violations of California law, he seeks class certification, damages, an injunction and attorney’s fees. Issue 615
A California federal court has dismissed a lawsuit against Yakult USA at the request of the plaintiff following two denials of class certification and standing for an injunction. Torrent v. Yakult USA Inc., No. 15-0124 (C.D. Cal., S. Div., order entered August 23, 2016). Yakult argued that the court should refuse to grant the dismissal because the plaintiff was seeking to ensure appellate jurisdiction, but the court rejected that logic. “It would be inappropriate for this Court to refuse Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal with prejudice to attempt to force Plaintiff’s continued litigation of these claims and preclude [appellate] review,” the court found. The plaintiff previously attempted to obtain standing for an injunction by purchasing Yakult again after the court told him he would be unlikely to purchase the product in the future because he believed the healthful claims of the product to be untrue. Details about the denials of certification and…
A California federal court has refused to dismiss a consumer’s putative class action alleging Nature’s Way misrepresents its coconut oil as a healthy alternative to butter, margarine and other cooking oils despite containing higher levels of saturated fat. Hunter v. Nature’s Way Products, No. 16-0532 (S.D. Cal., order entered August 12, 2016). The court dismissed Nature’s Way’s argument that it was not making a nutrient content claim, finding that a “Variety of Healthy Uses” phrase on the label was near enough to “representations about ‘Non-hydrogenated; No trans fat’ and claims regarding medium chain triglyceride content” to plausibly suggest a nutrient content claim. The claim of misrepresentation was plausibly pleaded as well, the court held, but granted Nature’s Way’s motion to dismiss claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law for lack of specificity. The court also refused to find standing to pursue injunctive relief because the plaintiff was unlikely to purchase the…