Federal Court in Florida Revives Infringement Case Post-Judgment Due to the Misinterpretation of Key Terms within Flooring Patents
According to a report from Bloomberg Law News, a federal appellate court in Florida has revived a long-running, complex patent infringement case over flooring. The court determined that a federal judge materially misinterpreted the patent and remanded the case for new analysis to determine if there is patent infringement. Within this article, our Florida patent infringement litigation attorney provides a more comprehensive overview of the case.
The Background
The patent infringement lawsuit in question involves three companies, Acufloor LLC (the plaintiff) and EvenTile Inc. and FORPAC LLC (the defendants). Acufloor is a manufacturer of tile-leveling products and the defendants are competing businesses. The plaintiff has two patents that it alleges are being infringed upon by the defendants relating to devices that assist with the leveling, spacing, and alignment of floors.
The Procedural History
A patent infringement lawsuit was filed by the plaintiff in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. That lawsuit concluded with a stipulated judgment of non‑infringement. In effect, that set the case up to be resolved without any trial. However, Acufloor LLC appealed the decision.
Notably, a stipulated judgment of non-infringement is when both parties in a patent lawsuit agree (stipulate) that, based on a court’s interpretation of the patent claims, the defendant’s product does not infringe on the plaintiff’s patent. To be clear, the stipulation is not an admission that the product doesn’t infringe under a broader interpretation. It is a procedural shortcut to preserve the right to appeal the court’s interpretation.
Federal Appellate Court Determined Lower Court Judge Erred in Non-Infringement Finding
On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed the claim construction because the interpretation of patent claims is legally significant and typically de novo on appeal. Notably, the “clear error” standard applies to factual underpinnings in cases such as this one. The federal circuit court found that the district court misconstrued a critical claim phrase. It found that the court improperly altered the meaning in a way that affected the infringement analysis.
On these grounds, the appellate court vacated the stipulated non‑infringement judgment and remanded the case. In other words, the case has been returned to the district court to apply the revised claim construction and reassess infringement under those corrected definitions. On review, the trial court could determine that there is no patent infringement or that there is still no infringement even in light of a new analysis. All parties retain appeal rights.
Consult With Our Florida Patent Infringement Lawyer Today
At Perkins Law — Brand Protection, our team has the knowledge, skills, and legal experience needed to handle all types of patent litigation cases. We represent both claimants and defendants in patent disputes. If you have any questions about your rights or your options, please do not hesitate to contact us today for a completely confidential initial case review. From our Boca Raton office, we handle patent disputes across South Florida.
Source:
news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/florida-floor-tile-patent-lawsuit-revived-at-federal-circuit
