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 | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
