IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Denial of preliminary injunction in handbag hook design patent dispute affirmed, (Aug 18, 2026)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

The patent owners failed to show that the district court abused its discretion when evaluating the likelihood of success on the merits and carrying out its irreparable-harm analysis.

In a non-precedential disposition, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court denial of the patent owners’ motions for a preliminary injunction and re-consideration of the denial of the motion for preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit determined that there was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the motions (Jacki Easlick, LLC v. Accencyc US, No. 24-1538 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 14, 2026)).

Jacki Easlick, LLC and JE Corporate, LLC (collectively, Easlick) were the owners of U.S. Patent No. D695,526 S (the ’526 patent), a design patent claiming elements of their “Tote Hanger” brand handbag hangar hook. In 2023, Easlick brought a suit for design patent infringement against 67 online sellers (collectively, defendants) alleging that each defendant sold knock-off handbag hanger hooks on a variety of websites. AccEncyc US (AE) is a Chinese company that sold a handbag hanger hook on Amazon (among many other products), was one of those online sellers. 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. The district court granted Easlick’s motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order against all defendants. Easlick specifically sought a preliminary injunction against AE to prevent it from promoting, advertising, offering for sale, and selling knock off handbag hanger hooks. The district court considered the traditional injunction factors and denied the motion as to AE, finding that Easlick had failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm. Easlick then filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of the preliminary-injunction motion. The district court also denied that motion. Easlick timely appealed the district court’s denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction and re-consideration of the denial of the motion for preliminary injunction.

Motion for preliminary injunction. On appeal, Easlick argued that 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 Easlick had not shown irreparable harm.

Likelihood of success on the merits. Easlick’s position that the district court erred in finding no likelihood of success on the merits rested on two arguments: that the district court (1) improperly focused on individual design details in assessing design-patent infringement and (2) failed to consider the prior art.

Easlick argued that the district court improperly focused on individual design details in conducting its design patent infringement analysis. However, the Federal Circuit noted that the district court correctly considered “the ornamental features and analyzed how they impact the overall design.” The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court’s finding that “even if the pictures of the Tote Hanger and the accused product were mixed randomly, an ordinary observer could quickly restore them to their original order upon viewing the center of the parties’ handbag hooks.” Therefore, the Federal Circuit concluded that considering distinguishing features as the district court did here is not legal error. Moreover, it is hard to imagine how a court could reasonably conduct this analysis without pointing such features out.

Easlick next argued that the district court improperly failed to consider the prior art. Citing Ethicon Endo-Surgery Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) the Federal Circuit explained that comparing the claimed and accused designs with the prior art is beneficial only when the claimed and accused designs are not plainly dissimilar. Regardless, as the district court explained in deciding Easlick’s motion for reconsideration, a prior art analysis would not have changed the outcome of the district court’s preliminary injunction ruling. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court’s assessment that the prior art submitted by Easlick differed from the claimed design in several respects. Thus, as the district court correctly concluded, with the attention of the hypothetical ordinary observer still drawn to these significant differences, re-application of the ordinary observer test would not have changed the overall visual effect of the two designs. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Easlick failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its design patent infringement claim.

Irreparable harm. The Federal Circuit noted that the decision to grant an ex parte temporary restraining order against 67 defendants does not restrain the district court’s separate analysis of a motion for a preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit found that the district court assessed the evidence Easlick submitted as to each type of harm, and an overview of how foreign counterfeiting companies operate. The district court determined that the allegations of harm to “profits, consumer relationships, brand value, goodwill, and quality reputation are nothing more than conclusory and theoretical.” The district court further assessed Easlick’s arguments regarding customer confusion, market loss, competition, and price erosion, and again emphasized that Easlick offered no evidence as to each. The Federal Circuit also noted that mere 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. Therefore, the district court properly concluded that Easlick failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.

Motion for reconsideration. The Federal Circuit noted that Easlick sought the district court’s consideration of “new” evidence in the form of the physical hooks at issue and Easlick’s testimony regarding irreparable harm. As the district court stated, there appears to be “no reason why Easlick could not provide the physical evidence or testimony” either before filing its preliminary injunction motion or before the preliminary injunction hearing. Relying on In re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litig., 582 F.3d 432, 439 (3d Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit emphasized that courts avoid granting motions for reconsideration absent “extraordinary circumstances,” such as preventing a “clearly erroneous” prior decision from resulting in a “manifest injustice,” assessing newly available evidence, or accounting for “supervening new law.” Thus, the district court correctly determined that none of those extraordinary circumstances were present here.

Accordingly, the district court’s denials of Jacki Easlick’s motion for a preliminary injunction and motion for reconsideration were affirmed.

The Case is No. 24-1538.

Judge: Prost, S.

Attorneys: Stanley Donald Ference, III (Ference & Associates LLC) for Jacki Easlick, LLC and JE Corporate LLC. Timothy A. Duffy (Law Office of Timothy A. Duffy) for Accencyc US.

Companies: Jacki Easlick, LLC; JE Corporate LLC; Accencyc US

Cases: Patent FedCirNews USPTO