Sure Fit Home Products, LLC v. Maytex Mills Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-02169
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sure Fit Home Products v. Maytex Mills, Judge Schofield granted two discovery requests, denied the rest for claim construction, and postponed briefing.
Sure Fit Home Products, LLC and the other plaintiffs, and Maytex Mills, Inc.; the order addresses document production and scheduling for claim construction.
What happened
In Sure Fit Home Products, LLC et al. v. Maytex Mills, Inc., the plaintiffs asked the court to require Maytex to produce documents before the plaintiffs’ opening brief on claim construction for an asserted design patent.
The court granted requests for documents about the function of prior-art shower-curtain designs and the design of the accused products. It denied the remaining requests for purposes of claim construction, while noting that it was not deciding whether those documents were relevant to other issues.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield also postponed the claim-construction briefing dates until the ordered documents were produced and required the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint production and scheduling plan.
The detailed version
- Sure Fit Home Products, LLC v. Maytex Mills Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-02169
- Lorna Schofield
- July 12, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs asked the court to compel Maytex Mills, Inc. to produce several categories of documents before the deadline for the plaintiffs’ opening claim-construction brief concerning Maytex’s asserted design patent. Maytex opposed the request.
Court’s analysis
For a design patent, claim construction is the process of determining what the patent’s claimed design covers. The court explained that this inquiry focuses on the design’s nonfunctional aspects and may consider features of the claimed design in relation to the accused design and prior art.
Most of the disputed requests concerned the cost of the accused products and Maytex’s other products. The court found that those materials appeared relevant to infringement and damages but were not required to determine whether the asserted patent contained functional and nonfunctional elements. The plaintiffs did not persuasively explain why the information would meaningfully assist claim construction.
Ruling
The court granted the plaintiffs’ request for documents relating to the function of prior-art shower-curtain designs and granted the request for documents relating to the design of the accused products. It denied the plaintiffs’ remaining requests for purposes of claim construction. The court stated that the order did not address whether those remaining requests were relevant to other issues in the case.
The court also adjourned the claim-construction briefing dates until the ordered documents were produced. It ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint letter by July 15, 2021, describing their production plan and proposing revised dates for claim-construction briefing and discovery. Judge Lorna G. Schofield stated that a revised case-management plan would issue after the parties submitted their letter.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.