that the parties engage in licensing negotiations, are insufficient on their own to create an actual controversy. See Phillips Plastics Corp., 57 F.3d at 1053. The closest Defendants come to asserting infringement by Livorsi is to inform Plaintiff that it “has not been singled out ... concerning possible patent infringement ...” and to request information regarding other businesses that “may also infringe upon [the ’781] patent....” (R. 13-1, Defs.’ Mem., Ex. 2 ¶¶ 1, 2 (emphasis added).) This language does not constitute an express charge of infringement. See Phillips Plastics Corp., 57 F.3d at 1052 (affirming dismissal of suit where the defendant’s letter to the plaintiff stated that certain of the plaintiffs products were “covered by” its patent); Shell Oil Co., 970 F.2d at 888-89 (<HOLDING>). Without an express charge of infringement by
holding that false statements are constitutionally protected holding that vague conclusory statements are insufficient holding that statements in proof of loss are not conclusive claimant could explain statements holding analysts statements insufficient to satisfy particularity requirements because plaintiffs failed to identify with specificity the statements made by a particular defendant or describe how those statements were false or misleading holding patentees statements were insufficient to create a reasonable apprehension of an infringement suit despite statements that the alleged infringers activities fall within are covered by and are operations under the patent