Sure Fit Home Products, LLC v. Maytex Mills Inc.

Background

Sure Fit Home Products, LLC, SF Home Décor, LLC, Zahner Design Group, Ltd., and Hookless Systems of North America, Inc. claimed that Maytex Mills, Inc.’s “EZ UP,” “Glacier Bay,” and “Insta-Curtain” shower curtains infringed Design Patent No. D937,607. The patent claims an ornamental design for a shower curtain with at least six circular rings along the curtain’s upper portion, each having a vertical slit. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, meaning a court order temporarily preventing alleged infringement while the litigation proceeds.

The D607 Patent followed earlier patents involving shower curtains that could be mounted on a fixed rod. The earlier ’232 Patent used pairs of holes with horizontal slits, and the earlier ’248 Patent used slits extending from the holes to the edge of the curtain. The court also considered U.S. Patents ’667 and ’597 as possible references in assessing whether the D607 Patent was obvious.

Legal Standard

To obtain a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs had to show that they were likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer harm that money could not remedy, that the balance of hardships favored them, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. A substantial question about either infringement or patent validity can defeat the required showing of likely success.

Court’s Analysis

The court made a preliminary claim construction for purposes of the motion. It adopted Plaintiffs’ proposed description of the design, without resolving every dispute about the slit and the rings, because those disputes did not affect the motion’s outcome.

The court held that Maytex had raised a substantial question about the D607 Patent’s validity based on obviousness. The ’232 Patent created basically the same overall visual impression as the D607 Patent: both showed at least six circular rings near the top of a shower curtain, with similar spacing and slits that allowed mounting without removing the rod. The court treated the difference between horizontal and vertical slits as slight.

The court further found that the ’667 and ’597 Patents could serve as secondary references. Their designs had similar rings, spacing, and curtain-mounting features. The court concluded that the primary and secondary references showed discrete, incremental changes that an ordinary designer could have made to reach the D607 design. It therefore found that Plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of proving the D607 Patent valid. The court did not make a final determination that the patent was invalid.

The court separately found that Plaintiffs had not shown likely irreparable harm. Plaintiffs relied mainly on lost sales, lost market share, loss of brand recognition, and loss of goodwill, but the court found their evidence general, conclusory, and insufficiently connected to the alleged infringement. Direct competition could support an irreparable-harm finding, but the court determined that this factor alone was not enough on this record.

The balance of equities favored Plaintiffs because they identified their shower-curtain products as central to their business, while Maytex said the accused products were a small part of its business. Nevertheless, the court found that the public interest would not be served by limiting consumer choice through an injunction while there was a substantial question about the patent’s validity.

Disposition

The court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket No. 161.