Opinion ID: 4542383
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Tortious-Interference Claims

Text: Finally, we address Inline’s claims for tortious interference with prospective business and contractual relations.13 The prospective business interference relates to 12 Even if we were to consider this claim, we would dismiss it for the reasons set forth in Part II.B.3. 13 “To establish a claim of tortious interference with a prospective business relationship, a plaintiff must prove the defendant intentionally committed a wrongful -21- Nestlé’s 2014 and 2016 awards of its susceptor-sleeve business to Graphic, and the contractual claim pertains specifically to the 2014 award. The Federal Circuit has “held that federal patent law preempts state-law tort liability for a patentholder’s good faith conduct in communications asserting infringement of its patent and warning about potential litigation.” Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Comput. Grp., Inc., 362 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “State-law claims such as [Inline]’s can survive federal preemption only to the extent that those claims are based on a showing of ‘bad faith’ action in asserting infringement.” Id. This is equivalent to the objectively baseless element of the sham exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. See id. at 1375. We have already determined the record does not demonstrate that Graphic fraudulently procured its asserted patents or that its patent-infringement threats and suit were objectively baseless. Therefore, Inline’s tortious-interference claims cannot survive federal preemption. We conclude that the district court properly dismissed Inline’s tortious-interference claims.14 act which improperly interfered with the prospective relationship.” Hunt v. Univ. of Minn., 465 N.W.2d 88, 95 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). And “[a] cause of action for tortious interference with a contractual relationship requires five elements: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) the alleged wrongdoer’s knowledge of the contract; (3) intentional procurement of its breach; (4) without justification; and (5) damages.” Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc., 573 N.W.2d 356, 362 (Minn. 1998) (internal quotation omitted). 14 The district court dismissed Inline’s contractual-related claim for an additional reason. It found that Inline and Nestlé had not formed a contract involving Nestlé’s entire susceptor-sleeve business when Nestlé had decided to split its business between Inline and Graphic in 2014. For the reasons stated in the district court’s order, we too agree that a contract did not exist. See Inline Packaging, -22-