US Court of Appeals Archives

US Court of Appeals

Power outage: Assignment doesn’t include future improvements

by Sydney E. McDermott | Oct 23, 2025 | Patents

In a pair of related rulings, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed two decisions from two different agencies involving the same patent. The Court ultimately found that the International Trade Commission (ITC) correctly identified the owner of the asserted patent, and that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board correctly determined that the asserted patent was unpatentable. Causam Enterprises, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Case No. 23-1769 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2025) (Taranto, Chen, Stoll, JJ.); Causam Enterprises, Inc. v. ecobee Techs. ULC, Case No. 24-1958 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2025) (Taranto, Chen, Stoll, JJ.)

Causam initiated a complaint before the ITC, alleging that certain importers infringed its patent directed to technology for reducing electrical utilities power demands. The asserted patent claims priority as a continuation-in-part of a parent patent application. Although the face of the asserted patent lists Causam as the assignee, the parent application was assigned to another entity a decade earlier, along with “all patents which may be granted therefor” and “all divisions, reissues, continuations, and extensions thereof.” The assignment did not expressly include continuations-in-part.

The chief administrative law judge (ALJ) issued an initial determination that Causam was not the owner of the asserted patent and that no infringement had occurred. Causam subsequently requested a review of the initial determination by the full Commission. The Commission adopted the ALJ’s findings of noninfringement but declined to adopt the findings regarding ownership. Causam appealed.

Ownership of a patent is a threshold requirement for asserting Article III standing, and the complainant bears the burden of establishing standing in the pleadings. On appeal, the Commission and the ITC respondents argued that ownership of the asserted patent did not need to be decided for standing purposes as Causam had pleaded ownership in its complaint. The Federal Circuit disagreed, emphasizing that, as an Article III court, it is required to consider Article III’s standing requirements, even if the ITC is not. Because the issue turned on contract interpretation and did not require underlying factual findings, the Federal Circuit reviewed the standing issue de novo.

The Federal Circuit ultimately determined that the omission of the term “continuation-in-part” from the assignment agreement meant that the asserted patent was not included in the assignment and thus Causam had ownership of the asserted patent. The ITC respondents argued that the inclusion of “continuation” language was sufficient to encompass both continuations and continuations-in-part. The Court rejected this argument, noting that adopting such a position would effectively “insert words into the contract that the parties never agreed to,” particularly because continuations and continuations-in-part (which by definition include new matter not found in the priority application) are widely understood to be distinct concepts within patent law.

The Federal Circuit noted that such a distinction is especially significant in the context of patent assignments. In the case of continuations, recordation of the assignment of the parent patent or application is effective as to a child patent. In contrast, the same is not true for a continuation-in-part, meaning that [...]

Continue Reading

We’ve got standards: No issue preclusion for facts that must be proven under higher standard

by Ashley K. Justice | Oct 23, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a summary judgment finding claims invalid, on grounds that the district court erred in applying issue preclusion based on factual findings in an inter partes review (IPR) that held other claims invalid. Inland Diamond Products Co. v. Cherry Optical Inc., Case No. 24-1106 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2025) (Prost, Reyna, Chen, JJ.)

In 2020, Inland Diamond filed a patent infringement suit against Cherry Optical asserting dependent claims of two patents. A year prior, in 2019, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board had determined that the independent claims on which the asserted dependent claims depended were unpatentable in two IPRs. During these 2019 IPRs, the Board determined that the claims now asserted at the district court were not unpatentable. The Board decision was not appealed.

The district court granted Cherry’s motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims were invalid for obviousness. The district court concluded that issue preclusion applied, so Cherry did not have to perform an independent invalidity analysis for limitations of what the district court termed unpatentable claims contained in the asserted claims. The district court’s analysis focused on limitations added by the asserted claims. The district court permitted Inland to defend the asserted claims’ validity because those claims had been adjudicated as not unpatentable in the 2019 IPRs.

Relying on issue preclusion and Cherry’s asserted prior art, the district court granted summary judgment that the asserted claims were invalid for obviousness. Inland appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed, explaining that the district court erred in applying issue preclusion based on two 2024 decisions, ParkerVision and Kroy. In both decisions, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s holding for erroneous application of issue preclusion based on the Board’s factual findings. The Federal Circuit explained that facts proven under the Board’s then-lower standard of proof for unpatentability (preponderance of the evidence) cannot have issue-preclusive effects under the district court’s clear and convincing standard. The Federal Circuit distinguished cases where a claim has already been found unpatentable or invalid; in those situations, issue preclusion bars the assertion of those claims.

Applying this principle, the Federal Circuit reasoned that since the prevailing standard of proof for challenging patentability in 2019 in an IPR was lower and Inland’s asserted claims had never been determined invalid or unpatentable, the district court erred in giving issue-preclusive effect to the Board’s 2019 findings. To grant summary judgment, a district court must find that the patent challenger carried its burden under the clear and convincing standard separate from the Board’s factual findings. The Federal Circuit noted that to meet the higher standard, the evidence may be the same or similar to the evidence that led the Board to find that certain claims were unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.

Associational standing requires concrete, non-speculative harm

by Taylor MacDonald | Oct 16, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision dismissing a lawsuit against the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for lack of associational standing since no member of the association had standing to sue. US Inventor, Inc. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Case No. 24-1396 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2025) (Lourie, Reyna, Stark, JJ.)

US Inventor and National Small Business United (collectively, the plaintiffs) jointly filed a petition for rulemaking at the USPTO to amend the regulations that control the USPTO’s discretion to institute inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) proceedings. The plaintiffs proposed five instances in which the USPTO would have no discretion to institute an IPR or PGR. Separately, the USPTO issued a request for public comments regarding institution discretion two months after the plaintiffs filed their petition.

Eventually, the USPTO denied the petition, citing redundancy with the request for public comment. The USPTO assured the plaintiffs that their request would be considered as a public comment.

In response, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in federal court claiming that the USPTO had committed three errors:

The USPTO’s assurance that the plaintiffs’ requests would be considered “in unspecified ‘future rulemaking’” violated its duty to conclude the matter in an appropriate amount of time, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Under the APA, the USPTO failed to state adequate grounds for denial.
The USPTO violated the America Invents Act (AIA) by “fail[ing] to promulgate notice-and-comment rulemaking.”

The USPTO filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The district court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had neither organizational nor associational standing. The plaintiffs appealed.

Because the issue of associational standing was not specific to patent law, the Federal Circuit applied the law of the US Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, which reviews standing de novo.

Of the three requirements for associational standing (standing of at least one associational member, applicability of the issue to the association’s purposes, and individual member participation not required for the claim or relief), only the first was at issue.

The Federal Circuit concluded that since no member of the plaintiffs’ organizations had standing to sue, the plaintiffs themselves did not have associational standing. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had failed to claim anything more than speculative harm to any member resulting from the USPTO’s denial of plaintiffs’ petition. The Court found the “risk” of patent cancellation during an IPR or PGR proceeding insufficiently “actual or imminent” to afford any member standing to sue.

The Federal Circuit explained that a requisite third-party action outside of the plaintiffs’ control would need to occur before any harm to the plaintiffs’ members could be concretely realized. Third-party actions, including the filing of a petition for an IPR or PGR proceeding, the USPTO’s institution of such proceeding, and the USPTO’s ultimate decision in such proceeding, constitute multiple steps in the chain of events that might result in harm [...]

Continue Reading

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

No curtain call yet: Mixed verdict in patent, trademark, standing case

by Hannah Hurley | Oct 9, 2025 | Patents, Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed a wide array of issues in a long-running dispute over shower curtain technology. The Court provided important guidance on patent claim scope using intrinsic evidence, trademark standing and ownership of the mark in issue, trade dress functionality under TrafFix, and the need for district courts to provide a reviewable explanation when issuing patent infringement summary judgment based on the facts of this case. Focus Products Grp. Int’l, LLC v. Kartri Sales Co., Inc., Case No. 23-1446 (Fed Cir. Sept. 30, 2025) (Moore, Clevenger, Chen, JJ.)

The decade-long dispute started when Focus Products sent a cease-and-desist letter to Kartri Sales and its supplier, Marquis Mills International. The letter asserted patent infringement but was largely ignored. Focus Products then filed suit asserting three utility patents, two trademarks (HOOKLESS® and EZ ON), and unregistered trade dress rights in the appearance of its shower curtains.

Four months after the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, Kartri raised a venue objection and filed a motion to dismiss or transfer venue. The district court denied the motion, finding it to be unreasonably late, especially considering that Kartri actively conducted litigation after TC Heartland.

The district court construed several disputed claim terms. Based on its constructions, it found no triable issue of fact and granted summary judgment of patent infringement to Focus Products. However, the district court found genuine disputes of material fact regarding trademark and trade dress infringement and ordered a bench trial on those issues.

On the eve of trial, Kartri asserted unclean hands and equitable estoppel defenses. The district court denied these defenses because they were improperly raised for the first time immediately preceding trial.

After a bench trial, the district court held that:

Focus Products had standing to enforce the unregistered EZ ON mark.
Kartri infringed the mark and Focus Products’ trade dress, which was determined to be nonfunctional.
Kartri infringed Focus Products’ HOOKLESS® mark.

Accordingly, the district court awarded lost profits, reasonable royalties, attorneys’ fees, and enhanced damages for willful infringement. Kartri appealed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Kartri’s motion to transfer venue under TC Heartland, finding Kartri’s objection untimely. Kartri waited four months after TC Heartland to raise the issue, during which time discovery had progressed significantly. The Court emphasized that venue objections must be raised seasonably and that continued litigation in the chosen forum may constitute forfeiture.

The Federal Circuit largely reversed the district court’s infringement findings, explaining that the district court erred in its claim construction because Focus Products had disclaimed shower rings with a flat upper edge during prosecution. While an affirmative disclaimer usually originates from the patent applicant, the Court found clear and unmistakable disavowal through the applicant’s acquiescence to the examiner’s species election, claim cancellation, and narrowed claim scope. This disclaimer was reinforced by the prosecution of a related asserted patent, which explicitly claimed the disclaimed feature. A patentee cannot try [...]

Continue Reading

What we have here is a failure to communicate: Expert must map all claim limitations to the accused infringement

by Benjamin Ediger, Ph.D. | Oct 2, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed jury verdicts of infringement, finding that they were not supported by substantial evidence because of deficiencies in the patent owner’s expert testimony. Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, Case No. 2025 WL 2713518 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 24, 2025) (Moore, C.J.; Linn, Cunningham, JJ.)

AT&T Mobility was accused of infringing two patents owned by Finesse Wireless, both directed to methods for mitigating intermodulation product interference in radios. The accused technology involved Nokia radios implementing passive intermodulation (PIM) cancellation. Nokia intervened in the case. A jury found all asserted claims valid and infringed, awarding Finesse more than $166 million in lump sum damages. AT&T and Nokia moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on both noninfringement and the damages award, and alternatively sought a new trial. The district court denied the motions. AT&T and Nokia appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of JMOL on noninfringement and vacated the damages award, concluding that the jury verdicts were not supported by substantial evidence. The Court’s decision turned largely on shortcomings in the testimony of Finesse’s infringement expert, whose analysis was the sole basis for Finesse’s infringement case.

For the first patent, the Federal Circuit found that Finesse’s expert failed to demonstrate that Nokia’s PIM cancellation feature received all input signals required by the asserted claims. The expert relied on a Nokia diagram but misinterpreted it by mistakenly identifying a signal generated by the radio as one of the required input signals. Although the expert was made aware of the error, he did not clearly correct his position or identify alternative signals that satisfied the claim limitation. Finesse argued that the expert had corrected a “misimpression,” but the Court disagreed, finding that the expert failed to provide a clear and consistent explanation reconciling his contradictory positions.

The asserted claims of the second patent required seven multiplications involving three signals. Finesse’s expert relied solely on a Nokia document that listed only three multiplications yet equated them to the seven required by the claims. The Federal Circuit found this testimony inadequate, noting that the expert failed to explain how the three multiplications mapped to the seven required. On appeal, Finesse argued that the document actually evidenced 10 multiplications, but the Court was unpersuaded. Neither Finesse nor its expert explained how the 10 multiplications corresponded to the seven required multiplications, nor did they reconcile this new position with the expert’s prior reliance on only three multiplications.

Because Finesse failed to present expert testimony that adequately mapped each claim limitation to the accused method, the Federal Circuit reversed the jury’s infringement findings for both patents and vacated the damages award.

Practice note: The decision underscores the importance of detailed and consistent expert analysis in patent infringement cases, particularly when expert testimony is the sole basis for proving infringement.

Bank on it: Likelihood of confusion analysis requires factual consistency when evaluating DuPont factors

by Taylor MacDonald | Oct 2, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed in part a decision by the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board and remanded for new analysis of two factors under the Dupont likelihood of confusion test. The Court emphasized that the factual determination in factor two (similarity of the parties’ goods or services) should remain consistent through the analyses for factors one and six. Apex Bank v. CC Serve Corp., Case No. 23-2143 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2025) (Moore, Hughes, Cunningham, JJ.)

CC Serve has held a registration for the word mark ASPIRE in connection with credit card services since 1998. In 2019, Apex Bank, a Tennessee-based banking chain, filed intent-to-use applications at the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) for marks incorporating ASPIRE BANK for use in “banking and financing services.” CC Serve, which partners with banks to issue and service credit cards, filed a letter of protest during Apex’s trademark prosecution. Despite CC Serve’s objections, the PTO published Apex’s marks in December 2019. CC Serve then formally opposed the marks, and the Board sustained the opposition, finding a likelihood of consumer confusion. Apex appealed.

The Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s findings under the DuPont framework, which assesses likelihood of confusion based on multiple factors. Apex challenged the Board’s analysis of three specific factors:

Factor two: Similarity of the parties’ goods/services
Factor six: Strength of the prior mark in the marketplace
Factor one: Similarity of the marks themselves

The Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s finding under factor two, agreeing that “credit card services” and “banking/financing services” are highly similar based on their definitions and market overlap.

However, the Federal Circuit found fault with the Board’s analysis under factor six, which evaluates third-party use of similar marks to determine the strength of the contested mark. Apex submitted many examples of ASPIRE marks used in both the credit card and broader financial services industries. The Board, however, narrowed its focus to only those marks used in credit card services, excluding broader banking and financial services. The Federal Circuit concluded that this was inconsistent with the Board’s finding under factor two regarding the similarity of the parties’ goods and services. The Court instructed that on remand, the Board should consider third-party ASPIRE marks across both industries.

The Federal Circuit also directed the Board to revisit factor one, which assesses the similarity of the marks in light of the strength of the prior mark. Whether the strength of CC Serve’s mark is diminished when viewed in the broader financial services context could affect the “overall commercial impression” of the marks and the likelihood of confusion.

The Federal Circuit emphasized that factual determinations, particularly regarding the similarity of goods and services, must be applied consistently across the DuPont factors. The Court therefore remanded the case to the Board for reconsideration of factors one and six considering this guidance.

Functional relationship recitation can’t overcome anticipating prior art

by Tim Dunker | Oct 2, 2025 | Patents

Underscoring functional relationships as limitations in patent claims and the importance of claim construction, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision that found claims of a patent unpatentable notwithstanding a functional relationship recitation. Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., Case No. 23-2434 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2025) (Moore, Cunningham, Scarsi, JJ.)

Bayer owns a patent that describes the results of a phase III clinical trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of administering rivaroxaban with and without aspirin for the prevention of major adverse cardiac events. Certain claims require “administering to the human patient rivaroxaban and aspirin in amounts that are clinically proven effective in reducing the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular death[,] wherein rivaroxaban is administered in an amount of 2.5 mg twice daily and aspirin is administered in an amount of 75 – 100 mg daily.” Other claims are directed to a once daily administration of “a first product comprising rivaroxaban and aspirin” and “a second product comprising rivaroxaban.”

Mylan challenged the patent in inter partes review (IPR), arguing that certain claims were anticipated by the Foley reference and others were obvious over Foley alone or in combination with Plosker. The Board agreed, finding all challenged claims unpatentable. Bayer appealed.

Bayer argued that the Board erred in:

Construing “clinically proven effective” as non-limiting and finding, in the alternative, that it was inherently anticipated
Construing “first product comprising rivaroxaban and aspirin” to encompass administration of rivaroxaban and aspirin as separate dosage forms
Failing to articulate why a skilled artisan would have combined Foley and Plosker with a reasonable expectation of success
Failing to analyze whether clinical proof of efficacy was an unexpected result

The Federal Circuit declined to resolve whether “clinically proven effective” is a limiting claim element, concluding that even if it were, it would not render the claims patentable. The Court explained that the phrase does not create a “new and unobvious functional relationship” with the known method of treatment. Analogizing to a hypothetical claim for a known drug method modified by a post-dated accolade (e.g., “Best Drug of 2026”), the Court emphasized that requiring clinical proof of efficacy does not transform the underlying treatment process.

Bayer relied on the Federal Circuit’s 2019 decision in Allergan Sales v. Sandoz, in which the Court found “wherein” clauses specifying safety and efficacy to be material to patentability. The Federal Circuit distinguished Allergan, noting that the claims there were written in open format and the “wherein” clauses modified the overall composition. In contrast, the claims of Bayer’s patent already specified exact dosages, and “clinically proven effective” did not modify any particular component. The Court therefore affirmed the Board’s finding of unpatentability for these claims.

However, the Federal Circuit agreed with Bayer on the construction of claims requiring a “first product comprising rivaroxaban and aspirin.” Bayer argued that this language required a single dosage [...]

Continue Reading

DMCA safe harbor: Prelude to a Supreme Court encore?

by Jodi Benassi | Sep 18, 2025 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted in part and denied in part Capitol Records’ petition for reconsideration of the Court’s January 13, 2025, decision in Capitol Records v. Vimeo. In that ruling, the Court determined that Capitol Records had waived the argument that Vimeo’s encouragement of users to make infringing lip-dub videos may constitute a form of right and ability to control infringement – an apparent forfeiture of the safe harbor provided by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In its reconsideration decision, the Court removed a footnote regarding whether the “right and ability to control” argument was preserved for Supreme Court review. Capitol Records, LLC, et al. v. Vimeo, Inc., et al., Case Nos. 21-2949; -2974 (2d Cir. Sept. 9, 2025) (Leval, Parker, Merriam JJ.)

Capitol Records filed a petition for reconsideration of the Second Circuit’s decision, which found that Capitol had waived its argument under Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster. A central issue was application of the Grokster precedent, which addressed inducement of copyright infringement. Capitol Records argued that Vimeo’s encouragement of users to create infringing lip-dub videos constituted a “right and ability to control” infringement, potentially forfeiting the DMCA safe harbor protection.

In its earlier ruling, the Second Circuit found that Capitol Records had waived this argument by not adequately presenting it in the appellate brief, despite having discussed it in the fact section. The Court emphasized that the argument was not developed in the argument section of the brief and, in a footnote, noted that Capitol Records had acknowledged that the argument was foreclosed by a prior ruling. Capitol Records argued that its waiver was not of the Grokster-based theory of forfeiture of the safe harbor, but rather of a claim under Grokster for induced infringement. The Court was not persuaded, noting that Capitol Records’ opening brief made no distinction between a Grokster-based inducement claim and a Grokster-based theory for forfeiting DMCA safe harbor protection. As a result, the Court rejected Capitol Records’ argument that the Grokster-based theory had not been waived.

In its most recent ruling, the Second Circuit granted Capitol’s petition to remove language from a footnote in the Court’s prior ruling that suggested Capitol’s Grokster inducement theory, based on the “right and ability to control,” was barred from Supreme Court review.

Practice note: The Second Circuit’s decision to partially grant and deny the petition for reconsideration clarifies the procedural requirements for preserving arguments on appeal and reinforces the complexities of applying traditional copyright principles to digital platforms. As the case progresses, stakeholders in the music and technology industries should monitor developments and implications for the DMCA and copyright enforcement.

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

Older Posts »

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS