Damages Archives | IP UPDATE

Damages

A costly discovery misstep: Untimely damages evidence excluded

by Nicholas J. DiRoberto | Jun 18, 2026 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court’s exclusion of damages evidence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) and the resulting grant of summary judgment against the plaintiff on all claims. Deque Sys. Inc. v. BrowserStack, Inc., Case No. 25-1534 (4th Cir. June 5, 2026) (Agee, Traxler, Floyd, JJ.)

Deque Systems develops software that helps businesses make websites accessible to users who have visual and hearing impairments. Deque sued competitor BrowserStack for copyright infringement, false advertising, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, alleging that BrowserStack reverse-engineered Deque’s software to develop a competing product and falsely advertised it as “5x faster” than Deque’s flagship offering.

Under the district court’s scheduling order, initial disclosures were due on June 7, 2024; expert disclosures were due on August 9, 2024; and fact discovery closed on October 11, 2024. Although Deque timely served its Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures, it failed to provide a computation of damages as required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). When BrowserStack later served an interrogatory seeking the categories and calculations of Deque’s claimed damages, Deque again declined to provide a damages computation, stating only that it intended to seek all available damages and that its calculations remained incomplete.

Deque also failed to serve a damages expert report by the August 2024 expert disclosure deadline. After retaining new counsel, Deque disclosed a $30 million damages calculation on October 8, 2024, just three days before the close of discovery. BrowserStack moved to exclude the damages evidence and sought summary judgment.

The district court excluded Deque’s damages evidence under Rule 37(c)(1), finding that Deque failed to comply with Rule 26’s disclosure requirements. Because Deque could no longer prove damages and failed to establish entitlement to injunctive relief, the district court granted summary judgment in BrowserStack’s favor on all claims. Deque appealed.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Court explained that Rule 37(c)(1) “gives teeth” to Rule 26’s disclosure requirements by prohibiting a party from using information that was not properly disclosed during discovery. The Court found that Deque had “indisputably failed to comply” with Rule 26(a)’s damages disclosure requirements by failing to provide a damages computation in its initial disclosures, expert disclosures, or interrogatory responses. The Court rejected Deque’s argument that its disclosure of damages in a rebuttal expert report three days before the close of discovery constituted a timely disclosure.

Turning to the propriety of the sanction, the Fourth Circuit applied the five-factor test set forth in its 2003 Southern States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co. decision:

Surprise to the opposing party
Ability to cure the surprise
Disruption of trial
Importance of the evidence
Explanation for the nondisclosure

The Fourth Circuit concluded that all five factors favored exclusion. BrowserStack was plainly surprised by Deque’s $30 million damages claim, which was disclosed only days before discovery closed. Curing that surprise would have required reopening discovery and significantly delaying the proceedings. Although the damages evidence was important, Deque failed to offer any meaningful justification for its repeated failure [...]

Continue Reading

Trade secret owner may pursue unjust enrichment damages despite licensing history

by Amol Parikh | Jun 4, 2026 | Trade Secrets

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part a district court’s post-trial rulings in a trade secret and contract dispute, finding that a trade secret plaintiff may pursue unjust enrichment damages under both the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA) even where the parties have a prior licensing relationship. The Court also reinstated the jury’s breach-of-contract damages award and rejected the defendant’s attempt to impose a heightened knowledge requirement for combination trade secrets. Versata Software, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 24-1140 (Fed. Cir. May 22, 2026) (Moore, Taranto, Hughes, JJ.)

Ford licensed Versata’s automotive configuration software under a Master Subscription and Services Agreement. When the agreement was about to expire, the parties failed to agree on renewal terms, and Ford released its own software, which it had developed while still licensing Versata’s software. Versata alleged that Ford misappropriated several combination trade secrets embodied in Versata’s software and breached the parties’ agreement. A jury found Ford liable for misappropriating three trade secrets and for breach of contract, awarding more than $22 million in trade secret damages and $82.26 million in contract damages.

Before trial, the district court had limited Versata to a reasonable royalty theory based on the parties’ licensing history and had excluded damages models that measured the value Ford allegedly derived from using the trade secrets. After trial, the district court reduced the trade secret damages award to $0 and the contract award to $3. Versata appealed.

The Federal Circuit found that the district court had legally erred by categorically precluding unjust enrichment damages. The Court explained that the plain language of both the DTSA and the MUTSA permits recovery of unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not accounted for in actual loss. While prior licensing history may be relevant to damages, it does not foreclose unjust enrichment as a matter of law. The Court therefore vacated the zeroed-out trade secret damages judgment and remanded for a new damages trial, instructing the district court to reconsider the reasonable royalty models it had previously excluded because they were not based solely on licensing history.

On the contract award, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and reinstated the jury’s $82 million award. Applying Michigan law, the Court concluded that Versata had given the jury a reasonably certain damages path in the form of three annual license figures ($17 million, $14.95 million, and $10.95 million) multiplied by seven and a half years. The jury’s $82.26 million award equated to about $10.97 million per year, which fell within the range supported by the evidence and did not shock the conscience.

The Federal Circuit also affirmed liability for trade secret misappropriation. Ford argued that Versata had to show that Ford knew the specific elements of each combination trade secret at the time of use or disclosure. The Court rejected that proposed heightened requirement, concluding that neither the DTSA nor the MUTSA [...]

Continue Reading

Lost in the constellation: Result-oriented claims miss the mark under § 101

by Keval Amin | May 7, 2026 | Patents

Addressing issues related to patent eligibility, infringement, and damages, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded, finding that certain result-oriented claims were directed to an abstract idea, lacked an inventive concept, and were therefore not patent eligible. Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., et al., Case No. 24-1822 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 28, 2026) (Lourie, Stoll, Oetken, JJ.)

Constellation sued LG for infringing its patents directed to communication systems employing non-uniform constellations, which are signal configurations designed to improve data transmission capacity compared to conventional uniform constellations. The accused products were LG televisions compliant with the ATSC 3.0 broadcast standard.

Constellation successfully moved for summary judgment in its favor on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. At trial, Constellation asserted nine claims across four patents, which the parties grouped into two categories: “optimization claims,” which recited constellations optimized for capacity, and “constellation claims,” which recited specific non-uniform constellation configurations. A jury found willful infringement and awarded damages. The district court denied LG’s motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of noninfringement and no damages. LG appealed.

On the patent eligibility issue, the Federal Circuit applied the two-step Alice framework and vacated the district court’s ruling as to the optimization claims. At step one, the Court found those claims directed to the abstract idea of optimizing a constellation for parallel decoding capacity. The Court emphasized that the claims were written in a result-oriented manner, reciting a constellation “optimized” for capacity without specifying how that optimization was achieved. Although the claims did not cover every possible optimization technique, they were broad enough to encompass all ways of optimizing a constellation for parallel decoding capacity. The Court rejected Constellation’s reliance on technical details in the specification and reiterated that the § 101 inquiry focuses on the claim language, not unclaimed implementation details. At step two, the Court found no inventive concept, explaining that Constellation’s alleged innovation was the abstract idea itself and that arguments based on novelty or nonobviousness do not satisfy § 101.

In contrast, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s eligibility determination for the constellation claims. The Court explained that representative claims recited specific, concrete configurations (such as unequally spaced constellation points, distinct labeling, and overlapping point locations) amounting to a particular technological solution to a defined problem. Because those claims were not directed to an abstract idea, the Court did not proceed to step two.

On infringement, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of JMOL. The Court clarified that a patentee may rely on industry standard compliance to prove some claim limitations while using product-specific evidence for others, as long as the standard is sufficiently specific and either mandatory or shown to be implemented in the accused products. Applying that framework, the Court found that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict.

As for damages, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of LG’s JMOL motion and its challenge to the admissibility of Constellation’s damages expert. The Court [...]

Continue Reading

Patent disclosure erases trade secret protection

by Hannah Hurley | Apr 30, 2026 | Patents, Trade Secrets

Addressing the boundary between patent disclosures and trade secret protection, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jury’s findings of trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and improper inventorship, concluding that the asserted “trade secrets” were generally known and therefore not protectable under California law. The Court affirmed, however, a $1 million statutory damages award for trademark counterfeiting. International Medical Devices, Inc. v. Cornell, Case Nos. 25 1580; 1605 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 17, 2026) (Dyk, Reyna, Taranto, JJ.)

International Medical Devices, Menova International, and Dr. James Elist (collectively, the plaintiffs) manufacture and sell the Penuma® cosmetic penile implant. The plaintiffs sued Dr. Robert Cornell and associated individuals and entities after Cornell attended a Penuma® surgical training session under a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) and later helped develop a competing implant. The plaintiffs asserted claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of the NDA, trademark counterfeiting based on unauthorized use of the Penuma® mark, and invalidity of two cosmetic implant patents for failure to name Elist as an inventor.

A jury found for the plaintiffs on all claims. After a bench trial on remedies, the district court awarded more than $17 million in trade secret and exemplary damages, entered a permanent injunction, and awarded $1 million in statutory damages for counterfeiting. Cornell appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed the trade secret verdict in its entirety, concluding that none of the asserted trade secrets were protectable under California law. The Court concluded that the alleged technical trade secrets were disclosed in publicly available patents and thus were “generally known” as a matter of law.

In doing so, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the long-standing principle that “that which is disclosed in a patent cannot be a trade secret.” Once information enters the public domain through patent disclosures, it cannot later be reclaimed as confidential business information through trade secret law.

The plaintiffs’ remaining alleged trade secret (a list of surgical instruments) fared no better. The Federal Circuit found that the list had been emailed to the defendants without any confidentiality designation or obligation, defeating any claim that reasonable measures were taken to maintain its secrecy.

Because the plaintiffs failed to identify any confidential information beyond the alleged trade secrets, the Federal Circuit also reversed the breach of contract verdict. The NDA expressly excluded information that was “generally available to the public,” and the Court found that an NDA cannot transform public domain information into protected confidential material.

The Federal Circuit reached a different conclusion on trademark counterfeiting, however, and affirmed the jury’s finding and the $1 million statutory damages award. The Court explained that the evidence showed that Cornell had advertised and offered Penuma® implants without authorization. Cornell argued that the Penuma® mark was registered only for goods, not services, and therefore could not support a counterfeiting claim tied to surgical procedures. The Court rejected that argument, concluding there was sufficient evidence that Cornell offered the Penuma® implant itself as a good, not merely a medical service.

Finally, the Federal Circuit [...]

Continue Reading

Not so fast, Daubert: Expert report OK after all

by Dexter Hamilton | Mar 19, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s exclusion of the plaintiff’s damages expert, finding that a proffered royalty base tied to unaccused products may be permissible when supported by a causal connection to the accused technology. The Federal Circuit vacated the resulting orders denying discovery and granting summary judgment for lack of a remedy. Exafer Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 24-2296 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2026) (Moore, Taranto, Stoll, JJ.)

Exafer sued Microsoft for patent infringement based on features of Microsoft’s Azure platform. After Exafer served its expert reports, Microsoft filed a Daubert motion, and the district court excluded Exafer’s damages expert because she used unaccused virtual machines as the royalty base. Exafer moved to reopen fact and expert discovery to present an alternative theory, which the district court denied. The district court subsequently granted Microsoft’s motion for summary judgment based on the absence of a remedy. Exafer appealed all three orders.

Exafer argued that the district court erred in excluding its damages theory, which relied on Microsoft’s virtual machine pricing rate to estimate the value Microsoft placed on the accused features. Exafer contended that the district court misapplied the Federal Circuit’s 2018 decision in Enplas Display Device v. Seoul Semiconductor by effectively creating a categorical bar against considering noninfringing activities in a reasonable royalty analysis.

The Federal Circuit agreed, explaining that in Enplas the unaccused products had no causal connection to the accused infringing products. Here, by contrast, the Court found such a connection: Microsoft’s own documents showed that Exafer’s royalty base was tied to a causal connection between the accused Azure features and the operation of virtual machines. The Court concluded that Exafer’s damages expert valued the accused features based on the incremental virtual machines Microsoft could host because of those efficiency gains.

The Federal Circuit rejected Microsoft’s argument that Enplas categorically precluded applying a royalty rate to sales of unaccused products to prevent a patent owner from “expanding its patent monopoly to unpatented products.” The Court explained that the analysis must be conducted on a case-by-case basis to determine how the parties would value the accused technology in the hypothetical negotiation. As an example, the Court noted that claims directed to methods of manufacture commonly use the unaccused product produced by the claimed method as the royalty base.

Tree-mendous award: Damages expert royalty opinions are lit

by Jodi Benassi | Mar 5, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a damages verdict amounting to tens of millions of dollars. The Court found that the patentee’s damages expert correctly apportioned value to the patented feature and rejected challenges to her methodology. Willis Electric Co., Ltd. v. Polygroup Ltd., Case No. 24-2118 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 17, 2026) (Moore, Stark, Oetken, JJ.)

Willis sued Polygroup for infringing its patent related to pre-lit artificial trees with decorative lighting. In response, Polygroup filed multiple inter partes review (IPR) petitions challenging the asserted claims. Following extensive IPR proceedings, only a dependent claim that required coaxial trunk connectors remained for trial.

A jury found the claim infringed and not obvious, and awarded about $42.5 million in damages, equating to a $4-per-tree royalty. Polygroup moved for judgment as a matter of law of obviousness or, alternatively, for a new trial on damages. The district court denied both motions. Polygroup appealed.

Effect of prior IPR ruling

Polygroup argued that because the independent claim from which the asserted claim depended was held unpatentable, damages should be limited to only the incremental value of the coaxial connectors recited in the asserted dependent claim. The Federal Circuit rejected that argument, explaining that the IPR applied the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, while the district court construed the independent claim under the Phillips standard. Under the district court’s construction, the independent claim required forming simultaneous mechanical and electrical connections regardless of rotational orientation, a feature that was not required under the IPR construction. Because the independent claim had not been held unpatentable under the district court’s construction, the Federal Circuit reasoned that the IPR ruling did not preclude Willis from relying on that one-step functionality in calculating the value attributable to the coaxial connectors recited in the dependent claim.

The Federal Circuit emphasized that what value was attributable to the claimed coaxial connectors was a question of fact for the jury. Substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that the value included rotationally independent, simultaneous connection functionality, not merely the physical presence of coaxial connectors.

Rule 702 and damages methodology

Willis’ damages expert presented two independent apportionment analyses.

Under an income-based approach, the expert compared profit margins for Willis’ “One Plug” trees and Polygroup’s Quick Set trees against comparable noninfringing trees to derive a royalty range. Under a market-based approach, she analyzed several license agreements to establish a reasonable royalty range, which she combined with her income approach to arrive at an expanded reasonable royalty range. She then applied the Georgia-Pacific factors to select a $5-per-tree royalty, resulting in a jury award of $4 per tree.

Polygroup argued that the expert failed to adequately apportion value and relied on non-comparable licenses and improper averaging methods. The Federal Circuit disagreed, emphasizing the district court’s gatekeeping role under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 while reinforcing the distinction between admissibility and weight.

The Federal Circuit explained that reasonable royalty determinations inherently involve approximation and uncertainty. Where an expert’s methodology is grounded in record evidence, including internal sales [...]

Continue Reading

Tied up: Federal Circuit affirms antitrust verdict in patent case

by Kassandra DiPietro | Feb 26, 2026 | Antitrust, Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury verdict finding that Ingevity engaged in unlawful tying under the Sherman Act by conditioning licenses to its patent on customers’ purchase of its unpatented products that were staple items of commerce. Ingevity Corp. v. BASF Corp., Case No. 24-1577 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2026) (Lourie, Prost, Cunningham, JJ.)

Ingevity sued BASF for patent infringement. BASF denied infringement, challenged the patent’s validity and enforceability, and asserted counterclaims for unlawful tying under federal antitrust law, alleging that Ingevity conditioned licenses to the patent on customers’ agreement to purchase Ingevity’s unpatented products. The district court granted summary judgment of invalidity and denied motions for summary judgment on BASF’s antitrust claims.

At trial, the jury found that Ingevity unlawfully tied licenses for the patent to sales of its unpatented products and awarded BASF antitrust damages. Ingevity moved for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, for a new trial, arguing that its conduct was protected under the Patent Act because its unpatented products were “nonstaple goods” (i.e., goods lacking substantial non-infringing uses) and that its actions were immune under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The district court denied those motions, and Ingevity appealed, challenging the jury’s tying liability finding, the rejection of Ingevity’s immunity defenses, and the damages award.

The Federal Circuit first addressed Ingevity’s statutory patent misuse defense under 35 U.S.C. § 271(d), which permits patentees to control nonstaple goods lacking substantial noninfringing uses. The Court concluded that substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that Ingevity’s unpatented products were staple articles of commerce because the record showed actual and substantial noninfringing uses in air-intake systems. Business records, customer purchases, and technical evidence provided a sufficient basis for the jury to find that the products had recurring, practical noninfringing applications, defeating Ingevity’s reliance on § 271(d).

The Federal Circuit also rejected Ingevity’s immunity arguments. The Court determined that Ingevity forfeited its reframed immunity theory on appeal because it differed materially from the argument presented in the case below. In the alternative, the Court explained that conditioning patent licenses on the purchase of staple goods constitutes commercial tying conduct beyond mere patent enforcement communications and is not protected by either the Patent Act or the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Accordingly, immunity did not shield Ingevity from antitrust liability.

Damages? Apportionment among licensed properties is essential, $10 million award reduced to $1

by Dexter Hamilton | Oct 9, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision excluding a damages expert’s testimony and reducing a jury’s $10 million damages award to nominal damages. The Court found that the plaintiff failed to put forth evidence from which a jury could reasonably determine damages without speculation. Rex Medical, L.P. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., Intuitive Surgical Holdings, LLC, Case No. 24-1342 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2025) (Dyk, Prost, Stoll JJ.)

Rex Medical sued Intuitive for patent infringement. Initially, Rex asserted two related patents directed to systems for stapling tissue during surgery. Intuitive filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) against one of the patents, and Rex withdrew it from the case.

Rex’s damages expert then opined that a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the remaining patent would have resulted in a $20 million payment. As support, he cited a prior settlement agreement between Rex and Covidien in which Rex asserted both patents before dropping the remaining asserted patent here from that case. Rex and Covidien ultimately settled, with Covidien paying $10 million to license both of the originally asserted patents alongside “eight other U.S. patents, seven U.S. patent applications and nineteen patents or applications from countries outside the United States.”

Intuitive moved to preclude Rex’s expert’s testimony regarding the Covidien license, and the district court granted the motion. Nonetheless, the jury returned an infringement verdict and granted $10 million in damages. Intuitive filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL). The district court denied the motion with respect to infringement and validity, but agreed on damages, reducing the award to $1. Rex appealed, challenging the exclusion of its expert’s testimony and the reduction of the damages award.

The Federal Circuit first addressed the exclusion of the expert testimony, reviewing for abuse of discretion. The Court noted that “[w]hen relying on comparable licenses to prove a reasonable royalty, we require a party to ‘account for differences in the technologies and economic circumstances of the contracting parties.’” The district court had held that Rex’s expert failed to adequately address the extent to which the patent dropped from this case and other patents included in the Covidien license contributed to the value of the license. As the Federal Circuit explained, the expert did not allocate the payment between the licensed patents and applications. Thus, the Federal Circuit ruled that the district court did not err in excluding the testimony.

Second, the Federal Circuit addressed the reduction in damages. Rex argued, and the Court agreed, that the reduction was in essence a grant of JMOL of no damages. The Court reviewed for abuse of discretion and described how, at trial, Rex relied primarily on the Covidien license and lay witness testimony to prove damages. While the lay witness testified that the focus of the Covidien license was both of the patents originally asserted here, the Court noted that the patent remaining at issue in this case had been dropped from [...]

Continue Reading

Oh brother: Draft settlement agreements carefully

by Ashley K. Justice | Sep 18, 2025 | Copyrights, Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court judgment, finding that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently prove damages for its copyright claim, the jury instructions accurately applied the sophisticated consumer exception to initial-interest confusion, and the district court properly submitted ambiguous contract language to the jury for interpretation. Hoffmann Brothers Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Hoffmann Air Conditioning & Heating LLC, Case No. 24-1289 (8th Cir. Sept. 8, 2025) (Graza, Stras, Kobes, JJ.)

Brothers Tom and Robert Hoffmann were partners in Hoffmann Brothers. After Robert bought out Tom, they entered into a settlement agreement that included a four-year restriction barring Tom from using the name “Hoffmann” in connection with an HVAC business. After four years, Tom began using “Hoffmann Air Conditioning & Heating, LLC” (Hoffmann AC). Hoffmann AC’s advertising agency later mistakenly used pictures of Hoffmann Brothers. Hoffmann Brothers sued for trademark and copyright infringement. Hoffmann AC prevailed on some issues at summary judgment, and the jury reached a mixed verdict on the remaining claims. Both parties were denied attorneys’ fees, and Hoffmann Brothers appealed.

On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed that Hoffmann Brothers did not sufficiently prove damages for its copyright claim based on Hoffmann AC’s use of its photographs. Because the photographs were unregistered works, Hoffmann Brothers was required to prove actual damages and/or additional profits of the infringer attributable to the infringement. Hoffmann Brothers’ only evidence of actual damages was Hoffmann AC’s monthly fee paid to its marketing agency. The Court found that using the monthly fee was too speculative because it did not reflect the benefit to Hoffmann AC or the harm to Hoffmann Brothers. For evidence of additional profits, Hoffmann Brothers’ expert report failed to link the use of the photographs to Hoffmann AC’s gross revenue. The Court explained that the Hoffmann Brothers could have linked additional profits attributable to the use of the photographs by, for example, demonstrating that:

Hoffmann AC gained customers because of the ads.
The photographs actually influenced purchasing decisions.
There was spike in monthly revenue that coincided with use of the photographs.

Regarding Hoffmann Brothers’ trademark claim, the jury found that the names were not so similar as to cause confusion. Hoffmann Brothers appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its jury instructions. The Eighth Circuit rejected the argument, finding the instructions fair and legally adequate. The instruction was directed to the issue of initial-interest confusion (a concept not adopted by Missouri courts), which occurs when consumer confusion arises at the outset, even if no sale ultimately results. The Court explained that under Eighth Circuit precedent, a sophisticated consumer exception applies to this theory, meaning that consumers who exercise a high degree of care are less likely to be initially confused. Here, the district court instructed the jury to consider initial-interest confusion only if it found that Hoffmann Brothers’ customers were not sophisticated. While the Eighth Circuit acknowledged some hesitation about the assumption that sophisticated consumers are never susceptible to initial-interest [...]

Continue Reading

Fifth Circuit untangles damages in trademark battle

by Christian Tatum | Sep 18, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reinstated a jury’s lost profits and breach damages awards that the district court set aside during post-trial proceedings, finding that sufficient evidence supported the awards. I&I Hair Corp. v. Beauty Plus Trading Co., Case No. 24-10374 (5th Cir. Sept. 5, 2025) (Haynes, Ho, Oldham, JJ.) (per curiam).

I&I Hair, the seller of EZBRAID synthetic braids, sued competitor Beauty Plus for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and breach of a 2019 settlement agreement that prohibited Beauty Plus from using the EZBRAID mark or confusingly similar terms. At trial, the jury awarded approximately $70,000 for infringement, $1.15 million in lost profits for unfair competition, and $1.3 million for breach of the settlement agreement.

After trial, the district court set aside the unfair competition and breach awards, concluding I&I failed to prove lost profits with reasonable certainty. I&I appealed.

The Fifth Circuit reversed, emphasizing that Texas law requires only competent evidence permitting a jury to determine lost profits with reasonable certainty, not precise proof of the exact amount awarded. The Court found that I&I had met this standard, highlighting evidence that EZBRAID sales surged by 400% in 2017 – 2018 and 70% in 2018 – 2019 but slowed to 10% growth in 2019 – 2020 after Beauty Plus began selling similar products. I&I’s sales declined further as Beauty Plus sold more than $5 million in infringing goods from 2019 to early 2022, with Beauty Plus making sales to nearly half of I&I’s customers. I&I also introduced revenue and profit margin data, as well as testimony that brand dilution and supply chain disruption amplified the harm. The Court concluded that the jury may have rationally considered I&I’s pre-infringement growth in revenue and net income, as well as testimony regarding customer confusion, to reach the damages awarded.

The Fifth Circuit rejected each of Beauty Plus’ arguments. First, it rejected Beauty Plus’ claim that the unfair competition award improperly mirrored Beauty Plus’ profits, explaining that the question was whether the number fell within the range supported by evidence, not whether it matched I&I’s calculations precisely. Second, the Court dismissed Beauty Plus’ challenge to the breach award, noting that Texas law requires certainty only as to the fact of damages, not the exact amount. Finally, the Court found I&I had adequately preserved its opposition to Beauty Plus’ judgment as a matter of law motion.

Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit reinstated the jury’s full verdict and remanded the case for further proceedings on attorneys’ fees.