Opinion ID: 615422
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Style of Doing Business

Text: The district court determined that Dish had not misappropriated a style of doing business because it did not take the specific manner in which RAKTL, the patent holder, operated its own business. Dish, 734 F.Supp.2d at 1184. In other words, the court imposed a requirement that the style of doing business at issue must be one actually used by the underlying plaintiff as opposed to a patented method owned by a patent-holding company. Dish argues that misappropriation of ... style of doing business can include the use of a patented technology for advertising purposes whether or not it was any particular company's actual style of doing its business. Dish Op. Br. at 38-39. In Novell, this court declined to define style of doing business. Novell, 141 F.3d at 987. We said that the phrase either referred to a company's comprehensive manner of operating its business, or was synonymous with trade dress, id., a term we have defined as a product's overall image and appearance, [which] may include features such as size, shape, color or color combinations, texture, graphics, and even particular sales techniques, Sally Beauty Co., Inc. v. Beautyco, Inc., 304 F.3d 964, 977 (10th Cir.2002). In this case we again find it unnecessary to definitively construe the phrase `style of doing business' because none of the abovedescribed definitions provide relief to plaintiff. Novell, 141 F.3d at 987. The RAKTL complaint does not even potentially allege infringement of any trade dress RAKTL, Dish, or any other company employs. Further, whatever pay-per-view ordering and customer service functions over the telephone may entail, it is far from an allegation that plaintiff misappropriated [RAKTL's] comprehensive manner of operating his business. Novell, 141 F.3d at 987. Dish argues that, just as advertising ideas need not refer to ideas for the patent holder to advertise its own products, style of doing business should not be restricted to the RAKTL's style of doing its own business. Dish Op. Br. at 38 (citing Hyundai 600 F.3d at 1101). We need not decide here whether, under some circumstances, a patented process or technology could be so comprehensive and detailed as to constitute a style of doing business even absent any actual past usage by, or identification with, a particular business. The allegations in this case do not rise to that level. At most, the complaint here claims only that Dish appropriated certain patented technologies that could be used as part of a company's comprehensive manner of operating its business, Novell, 141 F.3d at 987, and thus it does not allege misappropriation of a style of doing business.