Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. v. The Entities and Individuals Identified in Annex A

Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. v. The Entities and Individuals Identified in Annex A The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that collateral estoppel did not bar the district court from revisiting its earlier non-final reasoning in the same ongoing case. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering a later-issued, presumed-valid design patent—purportedly covering the accused products—as undermining Shenzhen’s likelihood of proving design-patent infringement at the preliminary-injunction stage. The decision gives district courts room, at least in nonprecedential Schedule A design-patent PI disputes, to consider a later-issued design patent covering the accused product when assessing likelihood of infringement. Affirmed. Shenzhen asserted U.S. Design Patent No. D886,982 for a foldable fan and initially obtained ex parte TRO relief and then a preliminary injunction against Zhouty. After a third party obtained later-issued U.S. Design Patent No. D1,046,104 listing the asserted patent as prior art, defendants argued the later patent’s issuance suggested a patentable difference from Shenzhen’s design and weakened Shenzhen’s infringement showing. The Federal Circuit rejected Shenzhen’s collateral-estoppel argument because issue preclusion does not apply within a single ongoing case to prevent a judge from revisiting non-final rulings. On the PI merits, the majority relied on the design-patent principle that anticipation and infringement use the same ordinary-observer inquiry, and found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s consideration of the later-issued presumed-valid patent. Judge Stoll dissented in part, arguing the district court used an improper shortcut and should have conducted the required three-way comparison among the accused product, the asserted design, and the prior art. infringement injunction / stay standing / jurisdiction non-precedential § 102 claim preclusion infringement injunction / stay standing / jurisdiction non-precedential § 102 claim preclusion infringement injunction / stay non-precedential claim preclusion