conflict preemption of the EPPs’ state law claims such that they “frustrate ‘the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’ ” Id. at 1335 (quoting Hines, 312 U.S. at 67, 61 S.Ct. 399). If the alleged state law claims are premised on conduct protected or governed by federal patent law, the actions are preempted. Id. “Conversely, if the conduct is not so protected or governed, then the remedy is not preempted.” Id. Courts have held that when the state law cause of action provides a remedy for conduct that occurs entirely before the PTO—such as inequitable conduct before the PTO—or for “patent-like protection,” it is preempted by federal patent law. See, e.g., Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 204 F.3d 1368, 1380-83 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>); Brennan, 952 F.2d at 1357 (holding that state
holding that if the underlying conduct is wrongful only by virtue of the labor laws then the rico claim is preempted recognizing that pennsylvania had no interest in denying its residents the greater damages available under new jersey consumer fraud statutes for claims against a new jersey seller recognizing israel had no interest in denying its citizens the substantive advantages of new jersey defamation law in new jersey residents claims for defamation published in new jersey holding that the nlra preempts a rico claim when the underlying conduct of the plaintiffs rico claim is wrongful only by virtue of the labor laws  holding new jersey rico claim preempted because it occupies a field identical in scope with the inequitable conduct defense