government to occupy exclusively.” Id. at 1332. And, finally, a state cause of action is preempted under conflict preemption to the extent it “actually conf (“Given the long history of state common-law and statutory remedies against monopolies and unfair business practices, it is plain that this is an area traditionally regulated by the States.”). Thus, the question here is “whether a state law cause of action conflicts with the purposes of federal patent law,” Hunter Douglas, 153 F.3d at 1335, or more specifically, whether there ort action for abuse of process preempted by federal patent law because allegations were confined to bad faith misconduct before the PTO); Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., Civil Action No. 030937 (SDW-MCA), 2009 WL 1437815, at *9 (D.N.J. May 19, 2009) (<HOLDING>); In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust
holding that where both defamation and tortious interference claims are pled and are based on same facts minnesota law requires the application of the actual malice standard to tortious interference claims holding state law fraud and deceit claims to be preempted holding the state law claims were not preempted holding that there is no cause of action in california for unjust enrichment holding state law tortious interference and unjust enrichment claims preempted where there was no finding of actual fraud and the conduct was based on nothing more than misconduct before the pto