It’s judicial precedent now, from Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan (W.D. Pa.) in yesterday’s Multiple Energy Tech., LLC v. Under Armour, Inc., ready for use in arguments, on coffee mugs, etc.
In the unlikely event that people are interested in the actual legal questions, here’s the introduction:
There is no material dispute that Tom Brady is the GOAT. Part of his unparalleled success was due to his well-known but rather alternative nutrition, fitness, and recovery methods, which he helped to market more broadly as part of his company, TB12. One of these methods involved bioceramic powder, which is a substance that is integrated into clothing, and, when worn, allegedly improves sleep and muscle recovery. This powder is what this case is about.
In 2014, Tom Brady introduced the parties in this case, MET and Under Armour. MET made a type of bioceramic powder called Redwave. Under Armour, of course, makes athletic apparel. They entered into essentially an exclusive supply agreement, and by early 2017, the parties launched their bioceramic sleepwear product at a consumer show, Tom Brady endorsed the product, and MET and Under Armour signed a short-term agreement to work to bring the product to market.
Then everything changed. The agreement ended. Under Armour changed course; it partnered with another producer of bioceramic powder, a company called Hologenix that made a bioceramic powder called Celliant. According to MET, Under Armour falsely marketed its new apparel containing Celliant as essentially being “FDA approved” when it wasn’t, encouraged some of its manufacturing partners not to deal with MET, and used confidential information from MET all the while.
As a result, MET brought the present lawsuit against Under Armour, claiming violations of the Lanham Act and Sherman Act, as well as numerous state-law claims. The parties have filed competing summary-judgment motions, now before the Court.
On careful review, the facts and the law bear this out: at most, this is a tortious-interference case. MET has adduced sufficient disputed evidence that Under Armour may have interfered with its ability to partner with TB12 and a few other textile manufacturing partners. So the tortious-interference claims (Counts V and VI) may proceed to a jury. The rest of the claims are factually or legally deficient (or both), so the Court will enter judgment on them in Under Armour’s favor.
