Opinions — Tuesday, January 13, 2026

The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB's refusal to register Laurel Designs' mark SAZERAC STITCHES for retail store services featuring home goods, finding a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark SAZERAC used for online retail services featuring distilled spirits and related merchandise. The court applied DuPont multifactor analysis, focusing on three factors: similarity of marks (factor 1), relatedness of services (factor 2), and similarity of trade channels (factor 3).

The court's application demonstrates how evidence of third-party use can establish relatedness even without direct overlap in goods or services. The Board identified ten online retailers (including Pottery Barn, Crate & Barrel, and West Elm) offering both types of goods under single marks, which the court found constituted substantial evidence supporting factors 2 and 3. On factor 1, the court upheld the Board's determination that SAZERAC dominated the applicant's mark as the first term and most memorable element, rejecting the applicant's Shen argument that STITCHES created a distinct commercial impression. The court emphasized that in ex parte proceedings, the analysis focuses on goods and services as described in the application and registration rather than real-world purchasing conditions, declining to consider arguments about consumer sophistication or permanence of purchases.

In LZLabs GmbH v. International Business Machines Corporation, the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision in IPR2023-00274 pursuant to a joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), with each side to bear its own costs.

In Ouster, Inc. v. Hesai Technology Co., Ltd., the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision in IPR2023-01457 pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) based on the parties' stipulation. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs.

The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB's final written decision that Apple failed to prove unpatentability of claims in U.S. Patent No. 9,191,083, owned by Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, which relates to a portable wireless network box with multiple antennas for transmitting and receiving data streams. The court affirmed the Board's claim construction requiring that the "plurality of antennas" include at least some bidirectional antennas capable of both transmitting and receiving, finding this interpretation consistent with both the plain claim language and the specification's repeated description of using the same antennas for both functions. However, the court vacated on procedural grounds under Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 75 F.4th 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2023).

The court applied Axonics to hold that the Board erred by refusing to consider Apple's reply arguments and evidence showing that the prior art reference satisfied the limitations even under Smart Mobile's claim construction, which Smart Mobile first proposed only after institution in its patent owner response. The Board had rejected Apple's reply submissions as "not grounded in or supported by the Petition," but the court ruled that when a patent owner introduces a new claim construction post-institution, the petitioner must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present argument and evidence under that new construction in its reply brief. The court remanded for the Board to consider Apple's reply evidence in the first instance.