Summary: FieldTurf holds a patent on artificial turf. FieldTurf convinced a California School District to write an RFP for construction of a sports playing field, which included features of its patented artificial turf. SportFields, a competitor, convinced the School District to allow its competing product, however the RFP was not amended. SportFields won the bid. FieldTurf sued for patent infringement based on this infringing offer to sell. On appeal, the C.A.F.C. upheld the decision of non-infringement because SportsFields intended to provide its own product and did not intend to sell an infringing product. However, they reversed the finding FieldTurf tortuously interfered with SportField's prospective economic advantage, but stated that it was not unfair for FieldTurf to pursue its patent rights. See also, MP3: FieldTurf v. SprinTurf(Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations omitted) PDF: FieldTurf v. SprinTurf(Fed. Cir. 2006) (full text) Patently-O: Written Offer for Sale Not Infringing Without Evidence that Infringing Product Would have Been Sold
