Chico's Fas, Inc. v. Clair

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________

CHICO'S FAS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant

v.

ANDREA CLAIR, ANASTASIOS KOSKINAS, 1654754
ONTARIO, INC., DBA WINK INTIMATES,
Defendants-Appellants
______________________

2016-1579, 2016-1581
______________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida in No. 2:13-cv-00792-SPC-
MRM, Judge Sheri Polster Chappell.
______________________

Before DYK, CLEVENGER, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
DYK, Circuit Judge.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The judgment of the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida (“district court”) is affirmed
on the ground that the district court properly granted
summary judgment that Beverly Johnson is an inventor
of the design patent, U.S. Patent No. D622,478, and the
utility patents, U.S. Patent No. 8,506,347 (“’347 patent”)
2 CHICO'S FAS, INC. v. CLAIR

and U.S. Patent No. 8,182,310 (“’310 patent”), that Ana-
stasios Koskinas is not an inventor of these patents, and
that the district court properly found that Johnson did not
abandon her ownership rights in the aforementioned
patents and that Chico’s had acquired these rights. We
remand to the district court to correct inventorship as
appropriate pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256.
We dismiss as moot the appeal from the district
court’s order determining that the ’347 patent and claims
1–2, 4–9, and 11–20 of the ’310 patent are invalid as
anticipated by the Natori Peony Contour prior art.
In light of this disposition, as Chico’s cross appeal is
conditional, we do not reach the issue of whether Clair
engaged in inequitable conduct.
No costs.
FOR THE COURT

February 9, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court