/EINPPresswire.com/ A Federal Court just issued a $3.3 million award against Joaquin T. Lu’s King Tuna for false advertising and patent false marking and denied all of Jake Lu’s claims against Anova. The award included a fine for falsely marking Lu’s products that was the largest ever.
“The false marking and advertising could not have been a mere innocent oversight,” determined Judge Otis D. Wright II in the case of King Tuna v Anova Food.
Two of Jake Lu’s companies sued Anova on November 14, 2007 for alleged false advertising and for infringing Lu’s U.S. Patent 5,484,619 for a filtered wood smoke process to preserve tuna. The infringement suit was dismissed early, and Lu’s other claims were tried in 2010. The Federal Court found in Anova’s favor on all claims, including Anova’s counterclaims for false advertising, unfair competition, and false patent marking.
The Federal court ruled that King Tuna be awarded nothing and that all its claims against Anova Food be dismissed with prejudice.
In its counterclaims, Anova Food claimed that Jake Lu’s King Tuna falsely marked and advertised Lu’s tuna with the Yamaoka patent ‘619. The judge found that King Tuna “knew it was not processing its filtered wood smoke treated tuna according to” Lu’s patent since October 2006, yet continued to market the tuna until October 2008. “If there were ever a case where a false marking award was appropriate, this would certainly be it,” said Randall Huff, counsel for Anova Food.
Judge Wright ruled that Jake Lu’s company must give all its profits unjustly earned by its knowing false advertising, totaling over $1.5 million, to Anova Food. The court also fined King Tuna an additional $1.85 million for falsely marking its products with the Yamaoka ‘619 patent, half of which will go to Anova Food and the other half will be collected by the United States Treasury. This fine, the largest to date for false marking, was justified because of the scope of Jake Lu’s intent to deceive the public by the false marking.
The court found that Lu and his family controlled King Tuna and its two suppliers, Mommy Gina Tuna Resources (MGTR) and Citra Mina Seafood Corporation, during the entire relevant damages period. “It will be difficult for King Tuna or any successor company organized during this lawsuit to ever do business in the USA without having to pay Anova the judgment, including any attorney’s fees the court may allow,” Huff stated.
