Notwithstanding Infringer's Timely Efforts To Cease Infringing Activity, Damages Accrue After Actual Notice of Infringement
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.17.08
The Federal Circuit, in DSW, Inc. v. Shoe Pavilion, Inc. (No. 2008-1085; August 19, 2008), vacates and remands a district court's summary judgment grants of non-infringement and no liability for past infringement against DSW. In doing so, the Federal Circuit concludes that the district court erred in importing a "track and roller configuration" limitation into claims 4-6 from claims 1-3 where the claim language is unambiguous and there is no contravening evidence from the specification or prosecution history. In this decision, the Court also confirms that a patentee may recover damages after actual notice of infringement even if the infringer makes reasonable and expeditious efforts to cease infringement over a number of months.
DSW notified Shoe Pavilion that its original shoe display infringed DSW's patents. Within seven months of such notification, Shoe Pavilion replaced its original shoe display with another redesigned shoe display. DSW then sued Shoe Pavilion for infringement by the redesigned display as well as for infringement damages on the original display. Shoe Pavilion moved for summary judgment that its redesigned shoe display did not infringe, and that it owed no damages on the original display. The district court granted Shoe Pavilion's motion.
The Federal Circuit first holds the district court improperly construed DSW's method claims to include a track and roller limitation from DSW's apparatus claims. While broad, the language of the method claims was unambiguous and the specification and prosecution history did not demand inclusion of the track and roller limitation. The Federal Circuit also holds DSW could recover damages for infringement by the original display, if the patents at issue are valid, because Shoe Pavilion continued to use the original display for several months after DSW provided actual notice of infringement. The fact that Shoe Pavilion took "reasonable steps and good faith efforts to bring its infringing activity to a timely end" is of no consequence.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25
District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
Client Alert | 21 min read | 12.04.25
Highlights: CMS’s Proposed Rule for Medicare Part C & D (CY 2027 NPRM)
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25
