Lowe v. ShieldMark, decided March 24, 2025

In this case, the appeals court affirms the lower court's findings of patent invalidity due to anticipation by prior art and the dismissal of the Lanham Act claim for lack of unambiguous falsity in advertising. It also upholds sanctions against the plaintiffs for bad faith litigation conduct related to disclosing patent ownership changes. However, the court vacates and remands a portion of the sanctions concerning a violation of a local patent rule, requiring further findings of bad faith. Lastly, the court affirms the denial of attorney's fees based on the defendants' allegations of inequitable conduct by Lowe before the PTO.