Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. v. Fortress Iron, LP
Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky
In a recent patent dispute between Barrette Outdoor Living and Fortress Iron, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit examined claims related to innovative fencing systems that use sliding connectors to allow pickets to pivot more easily. Barrette accused Fortress of infringing patents covering these assemblies, which aim to make installation quicker and the process of racking—tilting the fence on slopes—more flexible without needing screws or bolts. The lower court in Texas ruled that key terms like “boss” (a small protruding part on the connector) must be integral to the structure and free of fasteners, leading Barrette to concede it couldn’t prove infringement since Fortress’s products used separate pins.
The Federal Circuit agreed with the lower court’s view on one major point: during the patent application process for a related patent, Barrette clearly distinguished its invention from prior designs by emphasizing “integral bosses” that form as one piece, not separate parts. This statement limited the patent’s scope across the family of patents, even those already issued, meaning Fortress’s non-integral fasteners didn’t infringe. However, the appeals court disagreed that the patents required completely fastener-free bosses, noting the patent descriptions highlight multiple benefits like easy installation and better movement, not just avoiding fasteners entirely.
On the other side, Fortress challenged whether terms like “sliding surface” and “causes the connector to slide” were too vague to enforce, arguing they lacked clear definitions for things like required force or friction. The Federal Circuit rejected this, explaining the patent’s examples and descriptions—such as how connectors move along rail walls when pickets pivot—give enough guidance for experts to understand the boundaries without needing precise math or formulas. This ensures the claims inform skilled readers about the invention’s scope reliably.
The decision reinforces how statements made to patent examiners can narrow claim interpretations and stresses that patents don’t always need perfect precision to be valid, as long as the overall description is clear with respect to the claim limitations.