Pages

People

IP Case Updates Blog

Practices

Explore the latest in patent, trademark, and copyright cases on the Merchant & Gould LLP blog. Stay informed with expert insights on intellectual property law updates.

Home - IP Case Updates Blog

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in <a href="https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1616.OPINION.11-13-2025_2603126.pdf"><em>Smartrend Manufacturing Group (SMG), Inc. v. Opti-Luxx Inc.</em>, Nos. 2024-1616, 2024-1650 (Nov. 13, 2025)</a>, reversing and vacating an infringement ruling from the Western District of Michigan following a jury verdict for SMG in a dispute over an illuminated school bus sign.

core/paragraph

SMG sued Opti-Luxx for infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D932,930 and U.S. Patent No. 11,348,491. The jury found infringement of both patents, and the district court denied Opti-Luxx’s JMOL motions and entered a permanent injunction. Opti-Luxx appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed in part, holding that the district court erred in construing the claim term “transparency”, which required a new trial on design patent infringement. The Court also vacated the permanent injunction. However, the Court affirmed that Opti-Luxx forfeited its challenge to SMG’s expert testimony regarding the D930 design patent.

On the D930 design patent, the Court held that the claim construction was erroneous because the D930 patent claims its design “as shown and described,” and the written description stated that oblique shading lines “denote transparency.” The Court concluded that the district court improperly expanded “transparency” to include “translucency,” and that this incorrect construction required a new trial.

As for the ’491 utility patent, the Court affirmed the district court’s construction of “frame” as requiring a “separate and distinct component,” noting that the specification described a removable mounting frame that allowed the sign panel to be “exchanged, customized, or serviced.” Because Opti-Luxx’s products incorporated an integrated frame, the Court reversed the infringement judgment and held that no reasonable jury could find infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Specifically, applying the function-way-result framework, the Court noted that the patent repeatedly identified functions performed by the separate frame that the accused product cannot perform, rendering the differences substantial.

CAFC Reverses Expanded “Transparency” Construction and Orders New Trial on Design Patent Infringement

Related Professionals