Background
Focus Products and related companies own patents covering hookless shower curtains that attach to a rod through built-in rings. Kartri sold, and Marquis Mills manufactured, competing “Ezy Hang” curtains. Earlier district-court rulings found infringement, and a bench trial also produced findings involving trademarks, trade dress, and willful patent infringement.
The Federal Circuit later affirmed some rulings but reversed or vacated others. It held that the earlier claim construction did not cover Marquis’s products under two patents and directed the district court to conduct a more precise analysis under U.S. Patent No. 8,235,088. It also required reconsideration of whether Kartri’s remaining infringement was willful.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer held that the infringement judgments against Kartri remain in place because Kartri forfeited the relevant appellate challenge. The court rejected Kartri’s attempt to undo those judgments on remand, explaining that the Federal Circuit’s mandate did not authorize reopening an issue that had already been affirmed as to Kartri.
Marquis, however, did not infringe the ‘088 patent. Following the Federal Circuit’s instructions, the court treated the accused ring’s complete exterior—including its flat upper portion—as the “outer circumference.” Nothing distinct projected off that circumference as the patent required. Treating part of the ring itself as the claimed projecting edge would improperly divide one continuous structure and would effectively destroy the ring if that supposed edge were removed.
The court also found that Kartri’s infringement was not willful. Kartri promptly involved counsel and its supplier after receiving a cease-and-desist letter, and it stopped placing orders after the court’s claim-construction ruling. The Federal Circuit’s later agreement with the defendants on substantial noninfringement issues reinforced that Kartri’s earlier position was not the kind of wanton, malicious, or deliberately wrongful conduct that supports enhanced damages.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate mandate does not revive an argument a party forfeited during the appeal.
- Courts must identify the complete claimed structure before deciding whether a separate projecting element exists.
- Infringement does not automatically establish willfulness; the accused party’s knowledge, response, and objective basis for its position matter.
Why It Matters
The ruling illustrates how claim construction and appellate procedure can produce different outcomes for sellers and manufacturers of the same accused product. Kartri remained liable because of its appellate forfeiture, while Marquis prevailed on the merits of the patent construction.
For businesses responding to infringement allegations, the willfulness analysis is equally practical. Promptly consulting counsel, investigating the accusation, and changing conduct after an adverse construction can help distinguish ordinary infringement from the egregious behavior required for enhanced damages.
This opinion was reviewed from a public source copy, but no opinion URL that passed the site’s publication-time fetch verification was available.
Surfaced via Law360 IP.