The Western District of Wisconsin entered summary judgment in favor of all defendants on all of Fiskars’ patent infringement claims. After trial on counterclaims, the court also ordered Fiskars to disgorge $1,404,125.40 in profits to Woodland Tools based on surviving false advertising counterclaims found by the jury.

Fiskars asserted four patents: three design patents — USD684828S, USD720969S, and USD764882S — and one utility patent, US10321635B2. All cover aspects of gardening cutting tools including hedge shears, loppers, pruners, and herb snips. All four patent claims were disposed of at summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

The disgorgement award arose from Woodland Tools’ false advertising counterclaims. The jury found in favor of Woodland Tools on certain false advertising claims — including claims related to Fiskars’ marketing of its 9109 hand pruners. The court had already resolved other false advertising counterclaims in Fiskars’ favor on summary judgment and at trial, but the jury’s findings on the remaining claims supported the $1,404,125.40 disgorgement order.

All three individual defendants were cleared of Fiskars’ claims. The court entered summary judgment in their favor alongside the corporate defendants Woodland Tools Inc. and Lumino Inc. The public record does not specify the individual roles of Gundlach, Cota, and Koch, but their inclusion as defendants is consistent with Fiskars having alleged personal liability alongside the corporate entities.

The outcome suggests that Fiskars’ design patent claims lacked sufficient scope to cover Woodland Tools’ competing products under the ordinary observer test applied at summary judgment. It signals that design patents protecting consumer tool aesthetics may have narrower enforcement reach than expected, and that companies asserting such patents in competitive markets should anticipate both claim scope challenges and potential counterclaim liability for advertising practices.