The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has set aside both judgments entered against Opti-Luxx, Inc. in a high-stakes pair of patent infringement cases involving illuminated school bus signs. The opinion can be found here. The joint appellate and patent litigation team from Warner Norcross + Judd successfully persuaded the Court to reverse and vacate jury verdicts that had awarded Smartrend Manufacturing Group damages and an injunction. The decision has captured the attention of national media, including Law360 and Bloomberg Law.
Smartrend had sued Opti-Luxx in the Western District of Michigan for allegedly infringing both a design patent (U.S. Patent No. D932,930) and a utility patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,348,491) covering illuminated school bus signs. After a jury found infringement and the district court issued a permanent injunction, Opti-Luxx turned to Warner to handle the appeal.
In a precedential opinion issued Nov. 13, 2025, the Federal Circuit vindicated Opti-Luxx on every front:
- Utility Patent Reversed: The Court held that no reasonable jury could find infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The ’491 patent claimed a sign with a “separate and distinct frame,” enabling easy replacement or customization. Because Opti-Luxx’s one-piece design lacked those functions, the Federal Circuit ordered judgment as a matter of law for Opti-Luxx, overturning the verdict in its entirety.
- Design Patent Vacated: The Court also set aside the design-patent verdict after finding the district court’s claim construction of “transparency” — interpreted to include both transparent and translucent — inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of “transparency.” The case was remanded for a new trial based on the correct construction.
The Federal Circuit also vacated the injunction and awarded costs to Opti-Luxx.
This decision is a powerful reminder that precise claim construction and evidentiary discipline are essential in patent cases. The Federal Circuit made clear that district courts should not accept expert opinions at either the claim-construction or trial stage that lack corroborating objective evidence or conflict with the patent record and applicable law.
This case also exemplifies the firm’s ability to deliver a win in complex patent and IP disputes.
