Shower Curtain IP Fight: Federal Circuit Unravels $4M Judgment – What It Means for Patents

The seemingly mundane world of shower curtains has recently become the stage for a high-stakes intellectual property battle. In a case that highlights the complexities and potential pitfalls of patent, trademark, and trade dress law, the Federal Circuit recently overturned a significant portion of a $4 million judgment in Focus Products Group International, LLC v. Kartri Sales Co., Inc. This decision serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of clearly defining intellectual property rights and the potential for costly litigation when those rights are challenged.

A Hookless Shower Curtain Controversy

The dispute began in 2015, when Focus Products Group International, a company specializing in bathroom products, particularly “hookless” shower curtains, sent a cease-and-desist letter to Kartri Sales Co., a supplier to the hospitality industry. Focus alleged that Kartri’s “Ezy-Hang” shower curtains infringed on their utility patents for ring designs, trademarks, and trade dress. These patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,494,248, 7,296,609, and 8,235,088, detail the mechanics of hookless shower curtains, which use a series of openings along the curtain’s top end, reinforced by rings, to attach to a shower rod without needing hooks or clips. Focus argued that Kartri’s product infringed on these patents, as well as their HOOKLESS® and EZ ON trademarks, and the overall appearance of their curtains (trade dress).

Despite the warning, Kartri continued selling the accused curtains, leading Focus to file a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. Marquis Mills International, the manufacturer of the curtains, was later added as a defendant. The district court sided with Focus in 2022, finding that Kartri and Marquis had infringed on Focus’s patents, trademarks, and trade dress, deeming the infringement willful, and awarding approximately $4 million in damages and attorney’s fees.

Federal Circuit Intervention

Kartri appealed the decision, and on September 30, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a mixed ruling. While upholding the district court’s denial of Kartri’s venue transfer motion and “unclean hands” defense, the appellate court reversed or vacated several of the lower court’s key findings.

The Federal Circuit’s decision hinged on several key points:

Patent Infringement: The court found that the district court had erred in its interpretation of the asserted patents, particularly U.S. Patent Nos. 6,494,248 and 7,296,609. The court determined that the “prosecution histories” of these patents showed that Focus had “clearly disavowed a ring having a flat upper edge.” Because Kartri’s product only contained rings with a flat upper edge, the court reversed the finding of patent infringement on those two patents. However, it should be noted that because Kartri’s legal team violated a word-limit rule, Kartri remains liable for patent infringement damages.
Trademark and Trade Dress Infringement: The Federal Circuit vacated all trademark and trade dress infringement rulings against Kartri and Marquis. This means that the lower court’s findings that Kartri infringed Focus’s HOOKLESS® and EZ ON trademarks, as well as its shower curtain trade dress, were overturned.
Willfulness: Because the Federal Circuit reversed or vacated the infringement findings, it also vacated the finding of willfulness and the award of attorney’s fees.

In essence, the Federal Circuit significantly reduced the scope of the initial judgment, throwing out the trademark and trade dress claims entirely and narrowing the patent infringement claims. The case has been remanded to the district court for further proceedings on the remaining issues.

What This Means for Patents and Intellectual Property

This case offers several important takeaways for businesses and individuals involved in patents and intellectual property:

Clear Definition of Rights: The Federal Circuit’s decision underscores the critical importance of clearly defining the scope of patent claims during the patent prosecution process. The court’s reliance on the “prosecution history” of the patents demonstrates that statements made during the application process can significantly impact the enforceability of a patent later on.
Thorough Due Diligence: Before launching a product, companies should conduct thorough due diligence to ensure that they are not infringing on existing patents, trademarks, or trade dress. This includes not only searching for similar products but also carefully reviewing the claims and prosecution histories of relevant patents.
The Nuances of Trademark and Trade Dress: Trademark and trade dress law can be complex, and it is essential to understand the requirements for establishing and protecting these rights. A product’s overall appearance can be protected as trade dress, but it must be distinctive and non-functional.
The Importance of Following Court Rules: The Federal Circuit suggested sanctions in this case because the legal team violated word-count rules. This highlights the importance of following court rules.
The Cost of Litigation: Even when successful on appeal, intellectual property litigation can be incredibly expensive and time-consuming. This case, which began in 2015, is still ongoing, highlighting the protracted nature of these disputes.

Advice for Businesses Facing IP Disputes

If your business is facing an intellectual property dispute, here are some steps you should take:

Seek Legal Counsel: Consult with an experienced intellectual property attorney as soon as possible. An attorney can help you assess the strength of your position, develop a litigation strategy, and protect your rights.
Conduct a Thorough Investigation: Gather all relevant information about the alleged infringement, including sales data, marketing materials, and product samples.
Consider Alternative Dispute Resolution: Litigation can be costly and time-consuming. Explore alternative dispute resolution methods, such as mediation or arbitration, to potentially resolve the dispute more efficiently.
Be Prepared to Defend Your Rights: If you believe that your intellectual property rights have been infringed, be prepared to take legal action to protect them.

The Focus Products Group v. Kartri Sales case serves as a cautionary tale for businesses of all sizes. It highlights the importance of understanding and protecting your intellectual property rights and the potential consequences of failing to do so. By taking proactive steps to define and enforce your rights, you can minimize the risk of costly litigation and protect your competitive advantage.

Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about intellectual property law, please consult with a qualified attorney.