Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Lights Out for Invalidity and Unenforceability Counterclaims After PTAB Invalidates Design Patent

By Micah Miller on August 1, 2016
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

bathroom lighting-4Flipping the switch on the last remaining claims in the case, a Massachusetts Court recently dismissed as moot two defendants’ counterclaims for declaratory judgment of invalidity and unenforceability following a PTAB decision invalidating the asserted patent.

In 2013, Maureen Reddy sued defendants Lowe’s and Evolution Lighting for infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D677,423, alleging that Evolution Lighting made and sold Lowe’s infringing light shades. Defendants asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability. Later, in September, 2015, the Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment of invalidity as moot. Importantly, the Court construed the summary judgment motions as directed only to Reddy’s claims, leaving the defendants’ counterclaims for invalidity and unenforceability alive.

Parallel to the District Court case, Lowe’s filed for inter partes review of the ’423 patent. The IPR concluded in April 2016, with the PTAB issuing a final decision invalidating the ’423 patent as obvious. Shortly after the PTAB’s final decision, the Court stayed the case until the time for Reddy to appeal the PTAB decision expired or any appeal terminated.

With only the counterclaims remaining, the Court returned to the case after the time for appeal of the PTAB’s decision had expired. The Court observed that “[w]hen ‘a claim is cancelled, the patentee loses any cause of action based on that claim, and any pending litigation in which the claims are asserted becomes moot.’” (quoting the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.) Thus, with the only claim of the ’423 patent canceled, the Court concluded the defendant’s remaining invalidity and unenforceability counterclaims were moot and dismissed them.

The case is Reddy v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc. and Evolution Lighting, LLC, No. 13-cv-13016 (D.Mass), before Hon. Indira Talwani. A copy of the order can be found here.

Photo of Micah Miller Micah Miller

Micah W. Miller is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Intellectual Property and Patent Law Groups. Micah’s practice focuses on obtaining and protecting intellectual property rights.

Micah represents clients before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and assists…

Micah W. Miller is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Intellectual Property and Patent Law Groups. Micah’s practice focuses on obtaining and protecting intellectual property rights.

Micah represents clients before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and assists clients in obtaining patent rights abroad. He has helped clients protect a broad range of technologies, including computer hardware, software, computer storage, data compression, e-commerce, computer graphics, medical diagnostic devices, solar cells, machine vision, mass spectrometry, and semiconductor processing and defect analysis.

Email
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    New England IP Blog
  • Organization:
    Proskauer Rose LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo