直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
    • AI + Finnegan
    • Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy
    • Diligence, Licensing, and Opinions
    • Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials
    • Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings
    • Prosecution and Portfolio Management
    • Trademark and Brand Management
    • AI, Electronics, and Information Technology
    • Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials
    • Communications
    • Consumer Goods and Services
    • Energy
    • Hospitality, Gaming, and Leisure
    • Life Sciences
    • Transportation and Logistics
  • Experience

Experience

Federal Circuit affirms that Trex’s composite products do not infringe

Nystrom

Trex Company, Inc.

A unanimous Federal Circuit panel affirmed a district court ruling of non-infringement for Finnegan client Trex, in Nystrom v. Trex.  Trex has the questionable distinction of having made new law, not once but twice, in the course of Nystrom’s running feud, in which Trex prevailed in three judgments in the Eastern District of Virginia and in three subsequent appeals to the Federal Circuit.  In its first groundbreaking holding, Trex successfully sought rehearing by the Federal Circuit, which vacated an initial 2004 panel decision reversing the district court’s non-infringement judgment, and issued a new decision following the Phillips decision and holding that the claims must be construed consistent with the specification.  Trex broke new ground again in 2009 when the Federal Circuit affirmed another judgment of non-infringement.  Trex had argued that the earlier decisions controlled, yet, the district court declined to give them res judicata effect.  The district court ultimately ruled in Trex’s favor on other grounds.  The Federal Circuit now holds that res judicata applies with respect to claim limitations that are the basis for a non-infringement judgment, even if the product is allegedly changed with respect to other claim limitations.  Nystrom is prohibited from proceeding against Trex for any product that does not include the claim limitations that were the basis for the earlier non-infringement judgments, even under the doctrine of equivalents.

Nystrom v. Trex Company, Inc., 09-1026, Fed. Cir., Judges Michel, Prost, Rader

Nystrom v. Trex Company, Inc., 2:06-cv-00569, E.D. Va., Judges Davis, Kelley, Stillman

Related Professionals

Tyler M. Akagi
Of Counsel
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4385
Email

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials

Pretrial Strategies

Related Industries

Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials

Manufacturing

Related Experiences

Federal Circuit affirms $61 million win for PPC Broadband

PPC Broadband, Inc

Federal Circuit clears Lawson Software in reversal of patent infringement decision

Lawson Software

Federal Circuit affirms claim construction and summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Finnegan client Pergo

Pergo LLC

Federal Circuit affirms $6.5 million damages award for Finnegan client Telcordia Technologies from Cisco Systems

Telcordia Technologies

Jury decision upheld by Federal Circuit for DuPont Air Products NanoMaterials

DuPont Air Products NanoMaterials, LLC

Federal Circuit, district court, and arbitration victories protect Cumberland Pharmaceuticals’ flagship product, Acetadote®

Cumberland Pharmaceuticals

Arthur A. Collins, Inc. v. Northern Telecom Ltd.

Northern Telecom Ltd. (Nortel)

Federal Circuit reinstates jury’s infringement verdict for Finnegan client Uniloc USA

Uniloc USA

DuPont prevails on a written description defense to patent infringement at the Federal Circuit

DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP