Last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Jacki Easlick, LLC v. Accencyc US, a design patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Jacki Easlick, LLC and JE Corporate, LLC appealed a district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction as well as a denial of a subsequent motion for reconsideration. In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judges Dyk and Schall, the court affirmed the lower court. This is our summary of the opinion.
Judge Prost began by outlining the factual and procedural background:
On November 20, 2023, Jacki Easlick filed suit against 67 online sellers in the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the sellers infringed the D’526 patent by selling hooks for hanging handbags. AccEncyc US (“AccEncyc”), a Chinese company that sold a handbag hanger hook on Amazon (among many other products), was one of those online sellers.
In its complaint and in an ex parte motion, Jacki Easlick requested “(1) a temporary restraining order; (2) an order restraining assets and merchant storefronts; (3) an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue; and (4) an order authorizing expedited discovery.” That same day, the district court granted Jacki Easlick’s motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order against all defendants. . . .
Jacki Easlick subsequently moved for a preliminary injunction. The district court denied the motion as to AccEncyc, finding that Jacki Easlick had failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm. . . . Jacki Easlick then filed a motion for reconsideration of the district court’s denial of the preliminary-injunction motion. The district court denied that motion.
Regarding the denial of the first motion, Judge Prost explained how Jacki Easlick was arguing “the district court abused its discretion by applying the wrong standard when evaluating the likelihood of success on the merits and by incorrectly concluding that Jacki Easlick had not shown irreparable harm.”
Related to the first argument about the standard governing likelihood of success, Judge Prost highlighted how “Jacki Easlick argues that the district court improperly focused on individual design details in conducting its design patent infringement analysis.” Judge Prost disagreed. She found that “[c]onsidering distinguishing features—as the district court did here—is not legal error.” Additionally, she said, “as the district court explained in deciding Jacki Easlick’s motion for reconsideration, a prior art analysis would not have changed the outcome of the district court’s preliminary injunction ruling.”
Next, Judge Prost addressed Jacki Easlick’s arguments “that it will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief.” Judge Prost noted that “Jacki Easlick cites no law supporting” its positions. She said “[m]ere citations to case law recognizing the existence of each type of alleged harm accompanied by conclusory statements that those harms are occurring are inadequate to meet the requisite burden.”
Judge Prost then turned to “the denial of Jacki Easlick’s motion for reconsideration.” She explained that “Jacki Easlick sought the district court’s consideration of ‘new’ evidence.” According to Judge Prost, however, “there appears to be ‘no reason why [Jacki Easlick] could not provide the physical evidence or testimony’ either before filing its preliminary injunction motion or before the preliminary injunction hearing.” Because “new evidence in this context means evidence that a party could not earlier submit to the court,” Judge Prost determined there was “no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the motion for reconsideration.”
As a result of Judge Prost’s analysis, the panel affirmed the lower court.