Exotropin, LLC v. DP Derm, LLC, and Biosoft (Australia) PTY LTD

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida addresses motions by Exotropin, LLC to strike affirmative defenses asserted by DP Derm, LLC, Biosoft (Australia) PTY LTD, and Dermapenworld FZ LLE. The Court applies the Rule 12(f) standard and grants the motions in part, treating certain defenses as denials, allowing several equitable and trademark-related defenses to proceed, and striking defenses concerning irreparable harm, good faith, standing, and extraterritoriality or use in commerce. The omnibus order was entered on January 4, 2026.

Holdings

1. A Rule 12(f) motion to strike an affirmative defense is generally disfavored and should be granted when the defense has no possible relation to the controversy, may prejudice a party, is comprised only of bare-bones conclusory allegations, or is patently frivolous or clearly invalid as a matter of law.
2. A defense that merely denies an element or the sufficiency of the complaint is not a true affirmative defense and should ordinarily be treated as a specific denial rather than stricken.
3. Bare-bones but recognized defenses such as fair use, abandonment, acquiescence, waiver, estoppel, laches, and unclean hands may satisfy the fair-notice pleading standard when they identify the defenses the defendant intends to raise.
4. A laches defense may be asserted against untimely Lanham Act trademark-infringement claims, using analogous state-law limitations periods to assess whether the delay was unreasonable; the court could not resolve the defense's factual sufficiency at the motion-to-strike stage.
5. A defendant's assertion that the plaintiff cannot show irreparable harm is not an affirmative defense; under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a), the rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm operates within the plaintiff's burden for injunctive relief and may be rebutted by the defendant after a merits showing.
6. Lack of standing is not properly characterized as an affirmative defense because standing is a threshold jurisdictional issue that must be addressed independently of the merits, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it.
7. A denial that the plaintiff can establish use in commerce, and an assertion that the Lanham Act does not apply extraterritorially, are not affirmative defenses; use in commerce is an element of the plaintiff's prima facie case, while territoriality concerns the substantive scope of the statute.
8. A standalone assertion that the defendant acted in good faith and without willful infringement is not a defense to liability under the Lanham Act or Florida trade-dress law, although it may relate to remedies such as profits, enhanced damages, or attorney fees.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the defendants' asserted defenses were insufficient, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
2. Whether challenges to the sufficiency of the complaint, likelihood of confusion, and the strength or descriptiveness of the marks should be treated as denials rather than affirmative defenses.
3. Whether waiver, estoppel, laches, unclean hands, fair use, abandonment, acquiescence, and statute-of-limitations defenses provided sufficient notice to survive a motion to strike.
4. Whether lack of standing, lack of irreparable harm, good faith, and the asserted extraterritoriality or use-in-commerce theories were proper affirmative defenses.

Disposition

other