Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion and five nonprecedential orders. The opinion comes in a case involving allegations of patent, trademark, and trade dress infringement. One of the orders transfers an appeal; one remands a case; and three are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and the orders transferring and remanding cases, along with links to the dismissals.
Focus Products Group International, LLC v. Kartri Sales Co., Inc. (Precedential)
This case concerns intellectual property infringement allegations involving shower curtains having embedded rings, instead of hooks, to attach the curtain to a rod. Kartri Sales Co., Inc. (Kartri) and Marquis Mills, International, Inc. (Marquis) (collectively, Appellants) appeal several decisions of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In these decisions, the district court found that Appellants infringed several patent, trademark, and trade dress rights owned by Focus Products Group International, LLC, Zahner Design Group, Ltd., Hookless Systems of North America, Inc., Sure Fit Home Products, LLC, Sure Fit Home Décor Holdings Corp., and SF Home Decor, LLC (collectively, Focus or Appellees).
In the proceedings before the district court, the district court denied Appellants’ motion to transfer venue because, among other reasons, it was not timely raised. The district court then granted summary judgment of patent infringement for Appellees, determining that Appellants infringed various claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,494,248 (’248 patent), 7,296,609 (’609 patent), and 8,235,088 (’088 patent) (collectively, asserted patents) based on the district court’s claim constructions. The district court also denied Appellants’ unclean hands defense because it was improperly raised on the eve of trial. After a bench trial, the district court found that Kartri infringed Focus’s HOOKLESS® trademark (HOOKLESS® mark) and that Appellants infringed Focus’s EZ ON trademark (EZ ON mark) (collectively, the marks), as well as its shower curtain trade dress. The district court also found that Appellants’ infringement of the asserted patents and trade dress was willful and awarded lost profits, reasonable royalty, and attorneys’ fees to Appellees.
For the reasons explained below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand. First, regarding Appellants’ appeal, we affirm the denial of Appellants’ motion to transfer venue and affirm the denial of Appellants’ affirmative defense of unclean hands. However, we vacate (1) the trade dress infringement finding; (2) the willfulness finding; and (3) the award of attorneys’ fees. We also reverse the EZ ON trademark infringement finding. Next, as to Marquis’s appeal specifically, we additionally vacate the ’088 patent infringement finding and reverse the ’248 and ’609 patent infringement findings. Finally, as to Kartri’s appeal specifically, we affirm the ’248, ’609, and ’088 patent infringement findings, but vacate the HOOKLESS® trademark infringement finding.
Muldrow v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
Larry D. Muldrow appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas’s dismissal of his complaint seeking at least $75,000 in damages for alleged injuries associated with bloodwork performed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. In response to the court’s July 9, 2025 order to show cause, the United States urges dismissal or transfer of this appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Mr. Muldrow opposes transfer or dismissal and moves for various relief.
In re Velcro IP Holdings LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
Velcro IP Holdings LLC appeals from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirming the examiner’s rejection of certain patent application claims as obvious. Conceding that the Board erred in its analysis, ECF No. 23 at 3, the Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) moves without opposition for remand for further proceedings before the Board.