IP News

Patent Infringement and Trade Dress In the Ninth Circuit

In Mosaic Brands, Inc. v. Ridge Wallet LLC, 55 F.4th 1354, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2022), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded a judgment from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Background

Mosaic Brands, Inc (Mosaic) sued Ridge Wallet, LLC (Ridge) for trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act. In addition, both Mosaic and Ridge accused the other of patent infringement. Mosaic asserted that Ridge infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,334,616 ('616 patent) and Ridge asserted that Mosaic infringed U.S. Patent No. 10,791,808 ('808 patent). Mosaic and Ridge both make similar money-clip wallets. The District Court granted Mosaic's motion for summary judgment and held that Ridge's patent was invalid. Additionally, the District Court granted summary judgement to Ridge on Mosaic's trade dress claim. Mosaic appealed the claim construction of the terms "lip" and "of varying thickness" for the '616 patent along with the summary judgment ruling against its trade dress claim. Ridge appealed the summary judgment holding as to its '808 patent.

Patent Infringement: Claim Construction Issues

The Ninth Circuit held that the District Court's construction of the terms "lip" and "of varying thickness" was correct. In particular, the Ninth Circuit found that "lip" was limited to extrudable plastic materials and "of varying thickness" means "having a thickness, defining the outer dimensions of the holder, that causes the outer dimensions of the holder to be thicker in some parts and thinner in others." The written description of the '616 patent stated that the device of the invention is constructed of extrudable plastic materials. This statement in the specification did not specify that this only applied to a best mode or a particular embodiment of the invention. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit held that the use of "lip" is limited to extrudable plastic materials. As for "of varying thickness," the specification also mentioned having a thickness defining the outer dimensions of the holder that causes the outer dimensions of the holder to be thicker in some parts and thinner in some parts. Mosaic argued that "of varying thickness" had a plain and ordinary meaning throughout the patent and offered only extrinsic evidence of definitions in support of its stance. The Ninth Circuit held that the District Court's construction of a holder that causes the outer dimensions of the holder to be thicker in some parts and thinner in some parts is correct.