In Plumley v. Mockett (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1031, a designer brought an interference proceeding in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) against a patentee. (Plumley, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 1039.) In defense, the patentee argued that the designer's evidence was fabricated, but the PTO rejected his argument and ruled for the designer. (Id. at pp. 1040-1042.) This ruling was reversed on appeal. (Id. at p. 1043.) The patentee subsequently sued the designer and his attorney for malicious prosecution based on the interference proceedings. The designer and his attorney filed an anti-SLAPP motion claiming that the interim adverse judgment rule applied because the patentee's success in the interference proceeding demonstrated probable cause. (Id. at p. 1045.) In opposition, the patentee argued that the fraud/perjury exception applied because designer's success in the interference proceedings was based on fabricated evidence. (Ibid.) The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion but the Court of Appeal reversed, explaining that the patentee's argument that the designer's evidence was fabricated had already been rejected by the PTO and therefore could not establish the fraud exception As the court in Plumley held, where a claim of fraud or perjury is "litigated and rejected by a fact finder" in an action, "those same claims cannot be relied on to establish the absence of probable cause in a subsequent malicious prosecution suit. Stated differently, one cannot relitigate adversely decided factual matters for purposes of establishing the fraud exception to the interim adverse judgment rule." (Id. at p. 1056.)