their fiducial marker technology was protected by the ’457 Patent were not made in bad faith. Because Plaintiff has failed to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to Defendants’ bad faith, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment (D.I.221) on Plaintiffs unfair competition claim. III. Whether Defendants Are Entitled To Summary Judgment On Plaintiff’s State Tort Claims It is well recognized that state tort claims based on a patent holder’s representation of its patent rights to the marketplace are preempted by the patent laws unless a claimant can establish that the patent holder acted in bad faith. See Zenith Electronics Corp., 182 F.3d at 1355 (citing Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Harmonic Design, Inc., 153 F.3d 1318, 1337 (Fed.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds (ci tation
holding that to require less than bad faith would impermissibly alter the balance between the competing purposes of federal patent law that congress has prescribed holding that  1338a jurisdiction inures when a complaint establishes that federal patent law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law in that patent law is a necessary element of one of the wellpleaded claims holding that lanham act and state law unfair competition claims premised on false patent marking were not preempted by the patent act because the proponent alleged that the mismarking was done in bad faith holding that a bad faith claim is a tort holding that where a conflict between state and federal law is alleged it must be reasonable to conclude that congress would have intended to preclude the state law in question since it would make little sense to preempt state law in order to serve the purposes underlying federal legislation if congress itself would not require or admit of preemption of state authority