Focus Products Group International, LLC v. Kartri Sales Company, Inc.

Background

Focus Products Group International, LLC, Zahner Design Group Ltd., Hookless Systems of North America, Inc., Sure Fit Home Products, LLC, Sure Fit Home Decor Holdings Corp., and SF Home D Decor, LLC—collectively called “Focus” by the court—manufacture, sell, and distribute hookless shower curtains. They sued Kartri Sales Company, Inc. and Marquis Mills, International, Inc. for patent infringement, trademark and trade-dress infringement, and unfair competition under federal and New York law.

The court had previously granted Focus summary judgment on certain utility-patent infringement claims and dismissed numerous Marquis counterclaims. After a 2022 bench trial, the court found both defendants liable for infringement and unfair competition involving Focus’s EZ-ON trademark and trade dress, and found Kartri liable regarding the HOOKLESS trademark. It also found willful infringement of the utility patents and trade dress during part of the relevant period. The court awarded $2,938,337 in damages, including enhanced damages, and entered injunctions concerning the EZ-ON and HOOKLESS marks and trade dress. Focus’s design-patent claim had been stayed and was not resolved in the trial decision.

Attorneys’ Fees

Focus sought $1,549,544.91 in attorneys’ fees under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 285, and the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). Those statutes permit a fee award to the prevailing party in an “exceptional” case. Applying the governing standard, the court found that Focus’s litigation position was unusually strong and that the defendants had litigated the case in an objectively unreasonable manner.

The court relied on findings that the defendants had willfully infringed Focus’s intellectual property, disregarded a cease-and-desist letter, failed to investigate Focus’s rights, and deliberately copied aspects of Focus’s products and branding. The court also identified extensive litigation misconduct, including failure to produce important financial information during discovery, false representations about that production, repeated violations of deadlines and court rules, late defenses, attempts to relitigate issues already decided, and unsupported or baseless legal positions.

Fee Calculation

The court accepted the hourly rates claimed for Focus’s attorneys, paralegal, and pre-law intern and found that the documented hours were generally reasonable. It reduced the lodestar by $1,000 for two time entries involving work unrelated to this litigation. It then reduced the remaining award by 10% because some work concerned the unsuccessful or unresolved design-patent claim, and by an additional 30% because the substantial treble-damages award reduced the additional amount needed for compensation and deterrence.

The resulting award was $929,126.95—60% of the requested fee amount, less $1,000. The court stated that this amount was necessary and sufficient to serve the compensation and deterrence purposes of the fee statutes.

Costs and Interest

The court granted Focus’s request for recoverable costs but did not resolve any line-item objections. It directed Focus to file a bill of costs with the Clerk under Local Rule 54.1. The Clerk would initially determine taxable costs, subject to review by the court.

The court also awarded prejudgment interest on Focus’s actual, non-trebled damages during the infringement period. It rejected Focus’s requested prime rate and instead selected the one-year U.S. Treasury-bill yield, compounded annually. The court awarded post-judgment interest at the statutory rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

Disposition

Judge Engelmayer granted the motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. The court directed entry of judgment for $2,938,337 in damages and $929,126.95 in attorneys’ fees, plus costs and the specified interest, and terminated the motion at docket 505.