Jacki Easlick v. AccEncyc: What Design Patent Owners Must Prove for an Early Injunction

A design patent can be a powerful tool against products that copy a protected appearance. But a patent owner asking a court to stop sales at the beginning of a lawsuit must prove more than ownership of a design patent and a general resemblance between products.

The Federal Circuit’s August 14, 2026, nonprecedential decision in Jacki Easlick, LLC v. AccEncyc US illustrates two recurring obstacles: functional features may narrow the legally relevant comparison, and generalized claims of lost profits or damaged goodwill may not establish irreparable harm. The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction against an online seller of a handbag-hanger product.

For product companies, designers, and online sellers, the decision offers a useful roadmap for evaluating a design patent preliminary injunction before committing to emergency litigation.

What happened in Jacki Easlick v. AccEncyc?

Jacki Easlick’s TOTE HANGER® product was associated with U.S. Design Patent No. D695,526, covering a hook for hanging handbags on closet rods. In November 2023, the patent owner sued 67 online sellers in the Western District of Pennsylvania. One defendant, AccEncyc US, was a Chinese company that sold an accused handbag hook on Amazon.

The district court initially entered an ex parte temporary restraining order against the defendants. AccEncyc later contested the case, however, and the court denied a preliminary injunction against it. The court found that the patent owner had not shown either a likelihood of success on its design-patent infringement claim or irreparable harm.

The Federal Circuit affirmed in Jacki Easlick, LLC v. AccEncyc US, Appeal Nos. 2024-1538 and 2024-1826. The opinion is nonprecedential, so it does not establish binding circuit law. Its application of established design-patent and injunction principles is nevertheless instructive.

A temporary restraining order does not guarantee a preliminary injunction

One practical lesson comes from the case’s procedural posture. The patent owner had already received an ex parte temporary restraining order. That did not require the district court to reach the same result after AccEncyc appeared and the court considered the preliminary-injunction record.

A preliminary injunction generally requires the moving party to establish four factors: a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm without an injunction, a balance of hardships favoring relief, and consistency with the public interest. The patent owner bears the burden. Emergency relief granted before an adversary responds does not eliminate that burden at the next stage.

This distinction matters in online-counterfeiting and marketplace litigation. Early relief may be available quickly, but it can be revisited once a defendant presents competing evidence and argument. A patent owner should build the preliminary-injunction record as though the court will closely test every required element.

The ordinary-observer test looks at the overall design

Design-patent infringement is assessed under the ordinary-observer test. In practical terms, the question is whether an ordinary purchaser, giving the attention such a purchaser normally gives, would view the patented and accused designs as substantially the same and be induced to purchase one believing it to be the other.

The comparison focuses on overall visual impression, not a checklist of isolated similarities and differences. But that does not prevent a court from identifying important features that shape the overall impression. As the Federal Circuit explained, it is difficult to conduct an overall comparison without discussing the features responsible for the products’ visual effect.

In Jacki Easlick, the district court found that the two attached hooks and the product’s vertical configuration were functional elements. It then considered ornamental features that included the shapes of the hooks, the flare at the tip of the upper hook, the orientation of the hooks, and the spheres on their ends.

The court viewed the products’ center sections as materially different: the patented design had a corkscrew-like center, while the accused design used a laterally bent center. It also identified differences in the lower hooks and finished ends. Those differences supported the conclusion that an ordinary observer would not confuse the designs.

Functional elements can narrow the effective scope of a design patent

A design patent protects ornamental appearance, not an abstract product concept or utilitarian function. A useful article can contain functional elements and still qualify for design-patent protection, but infringement analysis must distinguish functional aspects from protected ornamental choices.

That distinction can be decisive. If a product must have certain features to perform its job, a patent owner cannot rely on those functional similarities alone to establish design infringement. The strength of the case may turn on the particular shapes, proportions, contours, surface treatments, and spatial relationships shown in the patent drawings.

This is why design-patent strategy begins well before litigation. Drawings define the claimed design. Applicants should identify which visual features create marketplace differentiation, whether alternative embodiments deserve separate protection, and how competitors might preserve function while changing appearance.

Tucker Law’s overview of the basics of design patent law explains how design patents differ from utility patents and why ornamentality matters during prosecution.

When does prior art enter the infringement comparison?

Prior art can help place differences between a patented design and an accused product in context. When the claimed and accused designs are not plainly dissimilar, comparing both designs with prior art may help determine whether similarities that initially appear important are common in the field.

The Federal Circuit concluded that a prior-art comparison did not change the result in Jacki Easlick. The prior designs offered by the patent owner differed from the patented design in several ways, while the significant differences between the patented and accused products remained apparent.

The strategic lesson cuts both ways. A patent owner should understand the prior-design landscape before arguing that shared features create the same overall impression. An accused infringer should determine whether those shared features already appear throughout the prior art. Either side that waits until an injunction hearing to organize that record creates unnecessary risk.

Irreparable harm requires evidence, not labels

The patent owner also alleged harm to profits, customer relationships, brand value, goodwill, and quality reputation. The district court found those assertions conclusory and theoretical, and the Federal Circuit agreed. The record did not contain supporting evidence of customer confusion, market loss, competition, or price erosion.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a patent owner must show that irreparable harm is likely without relief and must connect that threatened harm to the alleged infringement. A declaration that repeats familiar categories of business harm may not be enough.

A stronger record may include reliable sales trends, specific lost accounts, evidence of price pressure, customer communications, marketplace search results, advertising displacement, return or complaint data, and testimony explaining why later monetary damages would not repair the injury. The appropriate evidence depends on the market and the asserted harm, but it should be concrete and causally tied to the accused sales.

Companies considering patent litigation should preserve this information before seeking emergency relief. Marketplace listings can change, sellers can disappear, and platform data may become difficult to obtain. Screenshots, purchase records, seller identifiers, product samples, dates, prices, reviews, and communications should be collected in a defensible manner.

What product companies should do before seeking an injunction

First, compare the patent drawings with the accused product from every claimed view. Identify the ornamental similarities and differences that drive the overall visual impression, while separating features dictated by function.

Second, examine the relevant prior art. The analysis should address whether the asserted similarities are distinctive or already common in comparable products.

Third, build the harm record. Document actual marketplace effects rather than relying on generic assertions about goodwill, reputation, or lost sales. Explain why the alleged copying caused those effects and why damages at the end of the case would be inadequate.

Finally, evaluate whether the design-patent portfolio matches the commercial product. A business may discover that an early filing captured one appearance while the market evolved toward another. Future patent strategy should protect commercially important visual variations when the law and application history permit.

A careful limit on the decision

The lawsuit was what practitioners often call a “Schedule A” case because numerous unrelated online sellers were joined in one complaint and early relief was sought before defendants received notice. Several law professors filed an amicus brief concerning that practice.

The Federal Circuit expressly stated that the permissibility of Schedule A litigation was not before it. The opinion should not be described as approving or rejecting that model. The decision addressed the denial of injunctive relief as to AccEncyc based on the infringement comparison, irreparable-harm record, and reconsideration request.

The takeaway for design-patent owners and accused sellers

Jacki Easlick reinforces that design-patent injunctions are evidence-driven. Patent owners must present a convincing overall-design comparison centered on protected ornamental features, along with concrete proof of likely irreparable harm. Accused sellers should scrutinize functionality, prior art, visual differences, and the causal connection between accused sales and alleged injury.

Tucker Law represents inventors and businesses in patent prosecution and enforcement matters, including disputes involving product appearance and marketplace copying. To evaluate a design-patent application, infringement claim, or injunction strategy, contact Tucker Law.

This article provides general legal information and is not legal advice. The likelihood of infringement or injunctive relief depends on the patent drawings, accused design, prior art, evidence of harm, governing law, and procedural record.