Case Explained: JACKI EASLICK, LLC v. CJ EMERALD

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Filed: 2026-08-14 The Federal Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania’s denial of Jacki Easlick, LLC’s motions for a preliminary injunction and reconsideration regarding its design patent infringement claim against AccEncyc US. The court applied the abuse of discretion standard of review, evaluating the district court’s application of the four-factor preliminary injunction test: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, and public interest. Regarding the likelihood of success on the merits, the court held that the district court correctly applied the “ordinary observer” test under *Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.* by comparing the overall visual effect of the patented Tote Hanger design against the accused product rather than focusing on isolated details. The Federal Circuit found no error in the district court’s exclusion of functional elements from the scope of the design patent and its conclusion that significant differences in the ornamental features—specifically the center hook shape and finished ends—prevented an ordinary observer from being deceived into believing the designs were substantially the same. Additionally, the court agreed with the district court that a prior art analysis was not required because the designs were plainly dissimilar, and even if considered, would not have altered the outcome. On the issue of irreparable harm, the court affirmed that Jacki Easlick failed to meet its burden by providing only conclusory and theoretical statements regarding profits, brand value, and market loss without specific evidentiary support linking such harm to the alleged infringement. The court rejected the argument that the prior issuance of a temporary restraining order or the defendant’s failure to brief the issue compelled a finding of irreparable harm for the preliminary injunction stage. Finally, the court upheld the denial of the motion for reconsideration, determining that the proffered physical evidence and testimony were not newly discovered evidence that was previously unavailable, but rather evidence that could have been submitted earlier. As a result of this decision, the district court’s orders denying injunctive relief remain in effect, allowing AccEncyc US to continue selling the accused handbag hanger hooks without being enjoined by the preliminary injunction pending further proceedings or trial on the merits. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.