Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – April 2025

The following arguments will be available live to the public, both in-person and through online audio streaming. Access information will be available by 9 AM ET each day of argument at: https://cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/.

Wednesday, April 9, 2025, 10:00 A.M.

Top Brand LLC v. Cozy Comfort Company LLC, No. 24-2191, Courtroom 203, Panel F

Top Brand LLC (“Top Brand”) and Cozy Comfort Company LLC (“Cozy Comfort”) are competing businesses that sell oversized hooded sweatshirts; both companies hold design patents for similar products. Cozy Comfort owns The Comfy brand and Design Patent No. D859,788 (“the ’788 patent”), which covers the ornamental design of an oversized hoodie with an elevated marsupial pocket. After Top Brand sued Cozy Comfort for both design patent and trademark infringement in district court, Cozy Comfort counter-claimed, alleging that Top Brand’s Tirrinia and Catalonia product lines copied its protected design and branding.

Following a three-week trial, the jury returned a verdict that included roughly $18 million in disgorgement of Top Brand’s gross profits based on infringement of Cozy Comfort’s design patents and trademarks. Less than a month later, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, altered the obviousness standard for design patents. LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, 102 F.4th 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The Federal Circuit in LKQ overruled the long-standing Rosen‑Durling test for design patent obviousness, finding it “improperly rigid” for requiring that the primary reference be “basically the same” as the claimed design. Instead, the court held that the four-factor obviousness test for utility patents outlined in Graham and KSR applies to design patents. One week after the LKQ decision, Top Brand moved for a new trial due to the new standard. The district court judge denied the motion and upheld the jury verdict, concluding the judgment would remain the same under either test.

The  appeal raises three different issues. First, whether the district court should have granted a new trial in light of the Federal Circuit’s LKQ decision. Top Brand argues that it was unfairly restricted in presenting its invalidity arguments under the outdated standard and should now have the opportunity to challenge the ’788 patent’s validity under the revised LKQ framework. Cozy Comfort maintains that even under LKQ, Top Brand failed to provide a valid primary reference that would render the patent obvious, and, therefore, the jury verdict should stand.

Top Brand also challenges the district court’s handling of the design patent claims, arguing that it failed to properly construe the scope of the ’788 patent. Top Brand asserts that, during prosecution, Cozy Comfort made narrowing statements about the size and placement of the marsupial pocket, the positioning of the armholes, and the shape of the bottom hemline to distinguish its design from prior art. Top Brand contends that these statements should have limited the patent’s scope and, if properly considered, would have led to a finding of non-infringement. Cozy Comfort, in response, asserts that the jury’s verdict was well-supported under the ordinary observer test and that prosecution history should not override the patent’s overall visual impression.

The appeal also raises questions about damages. The jury found both design patent and trademark infringement and awarded full disgorgement of Top Brand’s gross profits. Top Brand argues that this award constitutes impermissible double recovery because it exceeds 100% of its gross profits and amounts to separate disgorgement for both claims from the same profit pool. It also contends that the district court erred by treating disgorgement as an automatic remedy for the jury to decide, rather than considering the equitable factors typically assessed by the court. Cozy Comfort, however, maintains that the award was appropriate given the willful nature of Top Brand’s infringement.

The Federal Circuit’s ruling in this case could shape future design patent enforcement, particularly in the wake of LKQ, and clarify the limits of disgorgement as a remedy in IP disputes.

Wednesday, April 9, 2025, 10:00 A.M.

Aviation Capital Partners, LLC v. SH Advisors, LLC, No. 24-1099, Courtroom 201, Panel E

Appellant Aviation Capital Partners, LLC (“Aviation Capital”), is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 10,956,988 (the “’988 Patent”). The ’988 Patent is directed to a computer-implemented method for determining the taxability status of aircraft. Appellee Situs Hawk Advisors, LLC (“Situs Hawk”) is a competitor in the field of aircraft discovery and tax valuation services. Aviation Capital sued Situs Hawk for infringement of the ’988 Patent. Situs Hawk moved for dismissal on the grounds that the claims of the ’988 Patent were patent ineligible under Section 101, or in the alternative, that it did not infringe the ’988 Patent. On appeal, the Federal Circuit will decide whether the district court erred in granting Situs Hawk’s motion to dismiss under Section 101.

Aviation Capital argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. It notes that the ’988 Patent claims are extremely narrow and specific. Aviation Capital argues that the claims provide “one specific way of finding and filling data gaps in aircraft control data,” a known problem in the field. Further, it argues the methods are necessarily rooted in the aviation field rather than simply being applied to the aviation field as a generic process. Meanwhile, Situs Hawk maintains that the claims are directed to an abstract idea for claiming collection and analysis. Additionally, Situs Hawk argues that the absence of preemption and the use of existing data for another purpose does not transform the claims beyond an abstract idea.

In the alternative, Aviation Capital argues that the ’988 Patent’s claims implement an abstract idea into a practical application consistent with the district court’s finding that the claims “have a practical application.” Aviation Capital notes that during prosecution the USPTO found that, even if claiming an abstract idea, the ’988 Patent claimed subject matter directed to a practical application and significantly more than an abstract idea because Aviation Capital amended the claims to state specifically “how” they solved the taxability status of aircraft problem. Situs Hawk counters that Aviation Capital did not raise this argument at the district court. Notwithstanding the potential waiver, Situs Hawk argues that the district court found that the claims of the ’988 Patent lacked an inventive concept. Situs Hawk also cites Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent that a practical application, alone, cannot confer eligibility.

Thursday, April 10, 2025, 10:00 A.M.

Realtek Semiconductor Corporation v. ITC, No. 23-1187, Courtroom 201, Panel G

Appellant Realtek Semiconductor Corporation (“Realtek”) is seeking to have the Federal Circuit review decisions made by the International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”) regarding a settled infringement dispute with Appellee Future Link Systems, LLC (“Future Link”). Future Link filed a complaint alleging Realtek’s integrated circuit products infringed certain Future Link patents covering power management techniques in semiconductor devices. This complaint led to an ITC investigation, but before the matter was fully adjudicated, the investigation was terminated after a settlement and a withdrawal of the complaint. Realtek sought sanctions against Future Link (alleging improper conduct) and declassification of certain portions of the settlement and license agreement. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied the sanctions motion and granted the declassification motion in-part. These decisions were later affirmed by the ITC. On appeal, Realtek argues that both decisions are subject to appellate review and that the ITC abused its discretion.

Realtek argues that the ALJ’s written decision was deficient because it failed to properly address Realtek’s arguments and supporting evidence regarding alleged misconduct by Future Link. Furthermore, Realtek asserts that this decision qualifies as a “final determination” under the relevant statutes (e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6) and 19 U.S.C. § 1337(c)) and therefore is subject to the Federal Circuit’s appellate jurisdiction. Realtek also argues that the Commission improperly applied its declassification standard—specifically, its two-part test under Commission Rule 201.6(a)—by denying declassification of key confidential business information. Under Rule 201.6(a), the party seeking confidentiality must show that the information is proprietary, a trade secret, or otherwise sensitive business information. The Commission then assess whether disclosure would likely result in competitive harm or whether there is an overriding public interest in disclosure. Realtek asserts that the Commission only mentioned the rule in its determination and did not apply the rule to the facts. Realtek further asserts that this denial prejudiced its ability to fully assess and litigate the merits of the underlying patent dispute.

Meanwhile, Future Link, with support from the ITC, maintains that the sanctions decision was proper. They both emphasize that the ALJ’s decision was based on a thorough review of Future Link’s complaint. Additionally, they argue that the remedy sought by Realtek—a payment directed to the ITC—does not constitute a redressable injury, thereby undermining Realtek’s standing to appeal. This payment would go toward educating future litigants and to deter future misconduct, but none of it would go to Realtek. The Commission and Future Link both argue that this payment would in no way remedy or address any injury in fact allegedly suffered by Realtek. They also contend that the sanctions issue, which arises under Section 337(h), falls outside the specific scope of determinations reviewable by the Federal Circuit. Under the Commission and Future Link’s interpretation of the statute and precedent, sanctions are only appealable to the Federal Circuit when the decision constitutes a final determination on the merits. They allege that the Commission’s decision was not a “final determination.” Regarding the declassification decision, Future Link and the Commission argue that under the applicable rules, the information in question was rightfully designated as confidential. Furthermore, they point out that subsequent public disclosure of the disputed information through other litigation renders the declassification issue moot.