IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Appellate ruling vacates $3.7M in damages and fees in IP dispute between hospitality furnishing sellers, (Sep 30, 2025)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Lower court misapplied prosecution history disclaimer, trademark ownership, likelihood-of-confusion analysis, and trade dress functionality.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the Southern District of New York’s award of more than $3.7 million in damages and attorney fees in a long-running shower curtain patent and trademark dispute, holding that the lower court had misconstrued patent scope, misapplied trademark principles, and failed to assess trade dress functionality. While the appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of a venue transfer as untimely and its rejection of an unclean hands defense for lack of deceptive intent, it reversed certain patent and trademark findings outright and vacated others for reconsideration, leaving the damages award without foundation (Focus Products Group International, LLC v. Kartri Sales Co., Inc., Nos. 23-1446, 23-1450, 23-2148, and 23-2149 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2025)).

Background. The plaintiff /appellee, Focus Products Group International, LLC, and its affiliated entities develop and sell bathroom products, particularly the “hookless” shower curtain. These products, sold under the HOOKLESS® and EZ ON brands, rely on patented ring systems that allow curtains to be installed without hooks or removing the rod.

The defendants/appellants, Kartri Sales Co., Inc., and Marquis Mills International, Inc., operate in the hospitality supply industry as distributors and manufacturers, respectively. Together, they developed and sold the "Ezy-Hang" shower curtain line, which Focus alleged infringed its patented ring technology and associated trademarks.

Focus asserted three patents, each covering related innovations in shower curtain ring designs. U.S. Patent No. 6,494,248 (the ’248 patent) claimed slitted rings that could be opened to slide over a shower rod. U.S. Patent No. 7,296,609 (the ’609 patent) described rings with projecting edges providing reinforcement. U.S. Patent No. 8,235,088 (the ’088 patent) claimed rings with flat upper edges, projecting edges, and offset slits that enhanced stability and appearance. All three patents shared a specification and were continuations aimed at simplifying installation and creating a neater aesthetic.

The dispute began in 2015 when Focus sent Kartri a cease-and-desist letter alleging infringement of its patented hookless shower curtain designs. Kartri continued selling the accused curtains, prompting Focus to file suit in the Southern District of New York. Marquis Mills, the manufacturer of the curtains, was later added as a defendant.

After claim construction, the district court denied a post–TC Heartland motion to transfer venue and granted Focus summary judgment of patent infringement. Following a bench trial, the court concluded that Focus had also proven trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and willfulness. It further deemed the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, entitling Focus to attorneys’ fees.

The district court ultimately entered judgment for $2,749,050.36 in trebled lost profits and royalties, plus $916,998.58 in attorneys’ fees, for a total award of $3,666,048.94. On appeal, Kartri and Marquis challenged the patent, trademark, and trade dress rulings as well as the damages and fee awards that rested upon them.

Venue. The defendants argued the case should have been transferred following the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. 258 (2017). The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of their motion, holding that the request was untimely. Citing In re Micron Tech., Inc., 875 F.3d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the appellate court emphasized that parties must raise venue challenges promptly after changes in controlling law. Waiting four months, as the defendants did, justified the lower court’s decision to treat the challenge as forfeited.

Patent infringement–’248 and ’609 patents. The appellate court reversed infringement findings on the '248 and '609 patents as to Marquis. The prosecution history, it held, contained a clear disclaimer of flat–edge rings. During prosecution, Focus elected only rounded-ring embodiments and did not contest the examiner's exclusion of flat–edge designs. This disclaimer limited the scope of the claim and excluded Marquis's products, all of which used flat–edge rings. The Federal Circuit relied on Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996), and Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 713 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2013), to underscore the binding effect of disclaimers made to secure patent issuance.

Patent infringement–’088 patent. The court vacated the infringement ruling on the ’088 patent. While affirming the construction of “projecting edge,” it found the district court failed to clearly distinguish between the outer circumference of a ring and a projecting edge. Without a proper boundary, the infringement analysis was incomplete. The Federal Circuit remanded for reconsideration in line with Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), which emphasized using specification and context to resolve claim ambiguities.

Unclean hands defense. Marquis asserted that Focus had acted inequitably by filing a terminal disclaimer after claim construction. The Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s rejection of this argument. It found no evidence of deceptive intent or misconduct sufficient to warrant application of the unclean hands doctrine. The ruling drew upon Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc), which imposes a demanding standard for proving inequitable conduct or similar equitable defenses.

HOOKLESS® trademark. Further, the Federal Circuit vacated the trademark infringement ruling concerning the HOOKLESS® brand. It explained that the district court had improperly compared the products rather than the marks themselves. Trademark law, as guided by Polaroid Corp. v. Polaroid Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961), requires an analysis of the similarity of the marks as presented in commerce, not of the products bearing them. Citing Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Burlington Coat Factory, 426 F.3d 532 (2d Cir. 2005), the court held the lower court had applied the wrong standard and it remanded for a proper likelihood-of-confusion analysis and a more thorough mark-to-mark comparison.

EZ ON trademark. The appellate court reversed outright the district court’s EZ ON trademark ruling. It held that Focus lacked standing to sue because it did not own the mark when the case was filed. Although Focus later acquired ownership, the initial 2012 licensing agreement with Carnation Home Fashions did not transfer ownership rights. Here, the Federal Circuit pointed to Ortho Pharm. Corp. v. Cosprophar, Inc., 32 F.3d 690 (2d Cir. 1994), which requires proof of a protectable ownership interest as a precondition to enforcement. Without standing, Focus could not prevail on this claim.

Trade dress. The Federal Circuit vacated the trade dress infringement finding. The asserted trade dress included neat curtain edges, embedded rings, and symmetrical layouts. The appellate court found that the district court failed to adequately analyze whether these features were functional. Functional features cannot be protected as trade dress under TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001). The court remanded for the lower court to determine whether the claimed features were merely aesthetic or provided utilitarian advantages essential to the product’s function.

Willfulness and attorney fees. Because the rulings on patents, trademarks, and trade dress were unsettled, the Federal Circuit vacated findings of willful infringement and the award of attorney fees. Both determinations, the court reasoned, are derivative of substantive liability. Without final resolution of the infringement claims, the findings of willfulness and exceptionality under 35 U.S.C. § 285 could not stand.

Conclusion. Thus, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a venue transfer and its rejection of an unclean hands defense, reversed the findings of infringement on the ’248 and ’609 patents as to Marquis and the EZ ON trademark ruling for lack of standing, vacated the infringement finding on the ’088 patent, the HOOKLESS® trademark ruling, the trade dress ruling, and the determinations of willfulness and attorneys’ fees, and remanded for further proceedings.

The Case is No. 23-1446.

Judge: Chen, R.

Attorneys: Morris E. Cohen (Goldberg Cohen LLP) for Focus Products Group International, LLC. Patrice Polyxene Jean (Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP) for Kartri Sales Co., Inc. Donald J. Cox, Jr. (Law Offices of Donald Cox, LLC) for Marquis Mills, International, Inc.

Companies: Focus Products Group International, LLC; Kartri Sales Co., Inc.; Marquis Mills, International, Inc.

Cases: Patent NewYorkNews FedCirNews