Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky
A recent decision from the Federal Circuit sheds light on the high stakes of honesty and fair play in patent lawsuits, especially when it comes to innovative products for everyday life—like toddler dining mats. The case involved two companies, Luv n’ Care, Ltd. and Eazy-PZ, LLC, who both manufacture mats designed to keep kids’ meals from ending up on the floor. At the heart of the dispute was U.S. Patent No. 9,462,903, which covers a self-sealing dining mat that sticks to surfaces to prevent spills.
After years of litigation, the district court found that Eazy-PZ, LLC (EZPZ) could not enforce its patent rights due to “unclean hands”—a legal doctrine that bars parties from getting help from the court if they have acted dishonestly or unfairly in relation to the case. The court pointed to EZPZ’s failure to disclose important patent applications, attempts to block discovery of prior art searches, and evasive testimony as reasons for this decision. This misconduct was found to have a direct impact on the case, depriving Luv n’ Care of a fair opportunity to defend itself.
However, the Federal Circuit also found that the district court made mistakes in other areas. Specifically, the court did not properly consider whether the patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct—meaning whether the patent owner intentionally misled the Patent Office. The appellate court said the lower court should have looked at all alleged misconduct together, not just each act in isolation. Additionally, the court found that factual disputes about whether the patent was obvious (and therefore invalid) should have been decided by a jury, not by the judge on summary judgment.
In the end, the Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of unclean hands, meaning EZPZ cannot enforce its patent against Luv n’ Care. But it sent the case back to the district court to take another look at whether the patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, and whether it is invalid for obviousness. The court also said Luv n’ Care is the prevailing party and may be entitled to attorney fees and costs, but left the final decision on those issues for the district court to make after the remaining questions are resolved.