CAFC DELIVERS MIXED DECISION ON PATENT, TRADEMARK AND TRADE DRESS CLAIMS FOR HOOKLESS SHOWER CURTAINS

“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday issued a precedential decision in Focus Products Group International, LLC v. Kartri Sales Co., Inc., affirming-in-part, reversing-in-part, vacating-in-part, and remanding for a new trial involving patent, trademark, and trade dress infringement claims related to “hookless” shower curtains.”

The opinion, authored by Circuit Judge Chen, with Chief Judge Moore and Circuit Judge Clevenger joining, held that while the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York properly denied Kartri Sales Co., Inc.’s and Marquis Mills, International, Inc.’s venue transfer motion and unclean hands defense, it erred in several of its infringement findings and damages awards.

Focus Products Group International, LLC and related entities had “invented and obtained several patents on a type of shower curtain—a ‘hookless’ curtain—that does not require hooks to attach the curtain to a shower rod but instead provides a series of openings along the curtain’s top end, reinforced by rings, to receive the shower rod.” The U.S. Patent Nos. 6,494,248, 7,296,609, and 8,235,088, explain that the openings and reinforcing rings are designed to permit “a curtain…to be attached to a mounting rod without the need for hanging support hooks [or] clips…while also avoiding the need to remove the rod from its supports.”

Focus sold its patented shower curtains under the HOOKLESS® and EZ ON trademarks and claimed trade dress rights in the overall appearance of the curtains.

The dispute began when Focus sent a cease-and-desist letter to Kartri in February 2015, “asserting infringement of Focus’s three utility patents” and informing Kartri that it was not authorized to use Focus’s patented technology on its “Ezy-Hang” shower curtains. Although Kartri forwarded the letter to its supplier, Marquis, “neither Kartri nor Marquis took any immediate action because Marquis was assured by its Chinese supplier that its hook-free shower curtain did not infringe any existing patents.”

Focus filed the lawsuit against Kartri in June 2015, and later amended its complaint to include Marquis as a defendant, alleging infringement of the asserted patents, trademarks, and trade dress.

Regarding venue, Kartri and Marqui had raised their objections approximately four months after the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC in a joint letter to the court. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that appellants had “forfeited [their] venue objection by failing to raise it seasonably, by formally submitting to the cause, and by actively conducting litigation in this venue after issuance of TC Heartland.”

The district court had denied Kartri and Marquis’ motion to transfer venue in part because it was not timely raised. It then granted summary judgment of patent infringement for Focus, finding that Kartri and Marquis infringed various claims of the 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” and that both Kartri and Marquis  infringed Focus’s EZ ON trademark, as well as Focus’s shower curtain trade dress. The district court also found that the infringement of Focus’ patents and trade dress was willful and awarded lost profits, reasonable royalty, and attorneys’ fees to Focus.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the venue transfer motion. The CAFC panel found that the district court “soundly exercised its discretion in finding that Kartri’s venue objection simply took too long,” noting that “TC Heartland was published on May 22, 2017, but neither Marquis nor Kartri raised any venue objection until September 18, 2017.”

The Federal Circuit’s most detailed analysis concerned the patent infringement claims, particularly regarding the ‘248 and ‘609 patents. The court found that “the prosecution histories of the relevant asserted patents show that the patent owner clearly disavowed a ring having a flat upper edge.” Since “the accused products only contain rings with a flat upper edge,” the court reversed the district court’s patent infringement determination for the ‘248 and ‘609 patents.

During prosecution of the ‘248 patent, “the examiner identified that these claims were directed to multiple patentably distinct species and instructed the patentee to elect one species for continued prosecution on the merits.” Focus elected a species that excluded rings with flat upper edges, and when the examiner later found that a dependent claim reciting “a flat upper edge” was “drawn to a nonelected species,” Focus did not object to its withdrawal.

The court emphasized that “by cooperating with the examiner’s repeated demand to exclude rings with a flat upper edge from the ‘248 and ‘609 patents, in keeping with the initial restriction requirement, the patent owner made it clear that it accepted the narrowed claim scope for these patents.”

The Federal Circuit also reversed the EZ ON trademark infringement finding against both Kartri and Marquis due to Focus’ failure to establish standing and vacated the HOOKLESS® trademark infringement finding against Kartri because it agreed the district court erred in its likelihood of confusion analysis. The court further vacated the trade dress infringement finding and the willfulness determination, instructing that “on remand, the court should determine if Kartri’s belief was reasonable.”

As to Marquis’ Unclean Hands assertion against Focus, the CAFC was not persuaded by Marquis’ argument that Focus’ decision to delay filing of its terminal disclaimer for the ‘088 patent only after succeeding on claim construction constituted bad faith conduct. It therefore affirmed the district court’s denial of this defense as improperly raised.

The court also vacated the attorneys’ fees award, finding it “necessary to recalculate the sum of attorneys’ fees to correctly apportion fees related to work where Focus still maintains prevailing party status.”

Information take from : https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/09/30/cafc-delivers-mixed-decision-patent-trademark-trade-dress-claims-hookless-shower-curtains/id=192738/

#Patent #Trademark