Lowe & Spota v. Shieldmark: Federal Circuit Affirms in Part, Remands in Part — 11-Patent Floor Tape Dispute
Clifford A. Lowe and Spota LLC pursued Shieldmark, Advanced Plastics, and Crown Equipment Corporation over a portfolio of 11 patents covering Mighty Line floor marking tape technology. After 700 days on appeal at the Federal Circuit, the court issued a split ruling — affirming some findings below and vacating others for further proceedings on remand.
Eleven-patent floor marking tape portfolio reaches Federal Circuit in split outcome
Clifford A. Lowe and Spota, LLC filed this appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 24 April 2023, challenging a lower-court outcome in a patent infringement action centred on Mighty Line floor marking tape. The plaintiffs asserted a portfolio of 11 United States patents — including US8088480, US5786028, US6120395, US10214664, US8343292, US6180228, US10738220, US10728220, US5846651, and US8883290 — against defendants Shieldmark, Inc., Advanced Plastics, Inc., and Crown Equipment Corporation.
The Federal Circuit closed the case on 24 March 2025 with a verdict of ‘Affirmed in Part, Vacated and Remanded in Part,’ with the basis of termination recorded as ‘Appeal Dismissed in Part.’ This mixed outcome means the appellate court found no reversible error in certain portions of the lower decision — leaving those rulings intact — while simultaneously nullifying other portions and returning them to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the Federal Circuit’s guidance.
The 700-day appellate duration and the split disposition of a large 11-patent portfolio suggest the court faced significant complexity in parsing which claims, patents, or infringement findings warranted affirmance versus remand. The public record does not disclose the precise patents or claim sets subject to each disposition, nor the commercial terms of any resolution. The remand leaves meaningful uncertainty for all parties: the vacated issues will require further adjudication, and the final scope of liability — if any — remains undetermined.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in Part in 700 days
700-day appeal — notably lengthy for a Federal Circuit infringement case
Federal Circuit affirms in part, vacates in part: what the split ruling means
What ‘Affirmed in Part, Vacated and Remanded in Part’ means
A split Federal Circuit disposition means the appellate panel reviewed each issue independently. Where it ‘affirmed,’ it found no reversible error in the lower court’s analysis — those rulings stand as final. Where it ‘vacated and remanded,’ it nullified those specific findings and returned them to the lower court to be reconsidered under the Federal Circuit’s instructions. This is distinct from a simple affirmance: the remanded issues are not yet resolved.
Mixed appellate outcomePartial win for Lowe and Spota — but remand keeps the fight alive
For Clifford Lowe and Spota LLC, the affirmance preserves whatever lower-court findings favoured them on the affirmed issues, giving those rulings the finality of a Federal Circuit-endorsed judgment. The vacatur and remand, however, signals that a portion of their claims did not survive appellate scrutiny in their current form — requiring further proceedings to determine final outcome on those patents or claim sets.
Partial portfolio survivalShieldmark and Crown secure partial relief but face continued exposure
Defendants Shieldmark, Advanced Plastics, and Crown Equipment obtained a meaningful partial victory: the Federal Circuit’s vacatur removes or resets certain adverse findings from the lower court. However, the remand means those issues must be relitigated, and the affirmed portions of the lower decision remain binding. The defendants cannot treat this as a clean win — continued district court proceedings are likely on the remanded issues.
Partial vacatur, remand exposureFloor marking tape sector faces prolonged IP uncertainty
With 11 patents in play and a split Federal Circuit ruling, competitors in the industrial floor marking tape space — particularly those supplying safety-marked warehouse and logistics environments — face ongoing IP risk. The affirmed findings carry the weight of final Federal Circuit endorsement, while the remanded issues mean the litigation is not over. Companies sourcing or manufacturing products in this category should monitor both the remand proceedings and the affirmed patent claims.
Ongoing sector IP riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Clifford A. Lowe | Individual | Patent holders in floor marking tape technology — asserting 11-patent Mighty Line portfolioSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Spota, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Shieldmark, Inc. | Company | Floor marking tape manufacturers and distributors including Crown Equipment CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Advanced Plastics, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Crown Equipment Corporation | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Laura J. Gentilcore | Attorney | Counsel for Clifford A. LoweSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ray L. Weber | Attorney | Counsel for Clifford A. LoweSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Renner, Kenner, Greive, Bobak, Taylor & Weber, LPA | Law Firm | Representing Clifford A. LoweSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David J. Sheikh | Attorney | Counsel for Shieldmark, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Howard Wernow | Attorney | Counsel for Shieldmark, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James F. McCarthy III | Attorney | Counsel for Shieldmark, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Lee Sheikh & Haan LLC | Law Firm | Representing Shieldmark, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA | Law Firm | Representing Shieldmark, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s verdict of ‘Affirmed in Part, Vacated and Remanded in Part’ reflects a differentiated appellate review across a large and technically diverse patent portfolio. Under the applicable standard of review, the court affirmed findings where it identified no reversible legal error or clearly erroneous fact-finding below, while vacating those portions where the lower court’s analysis was found legally deficient. The remand instructs the lower tribunal to reconsider the vacated issues under the Federal Circuit’s guidance — meaning those claims remain live and unresolved. For plaintiffs, the affirmed portions represent durable wins; for defendants, the remanded issues represent continued litigation exposure.
11-Patent Mighty Line Floor Marking Tape Portfolio — US8088480 and Related Patents
The asserted portfolio spans 11 United States patents, the earliest tracing application lineage to the mid-1990s and the most recent to the mid-2010s — reflecting a sustained R&D and IP prosecution effort by inventor Clifford A. Lowe. The patents collectively cover the Mighty Line floor marking tape product category, which encompasses adhesive tapes used to delineate aisles, safety zones, and workstation boundaries in industrial and warehouse environments. The technical claims likely span adhesive formulations, edge geometry, wear-resistant coatings, and laminate constructions.
A portfolio of this scale and vintage in the floor safety tape space is strategically significant: it creates overlapping claim coverage that is difficult for competitors to design around entirely. With Crown Equipment Corporation — a major warehouse equipment manufacturer — named as a defendant, the patents appear to cover products used in integrated warehouse safety ecosystems, not merely standalone tape. Any manufacturer, distributor, or integrator of industrial floor marking products operating in the United States should treat the affirmed patents in this portfolio as active enforcement assets.
Should you run an FTO against the Mighty Line floor marking tape patent portfolio?
Any company manufacturing, importing, distributing, or integrating industrial floor marking tape — particularly bevelled-edge safety tape for warehouses, logistics facilities, or manufacturing plants — faces meaningful exposure from the affirmed claims in this 11-patent portfolio. The inclusion of Crown Equipment as a defendant suggests the patents may extend to tape used in conjunction with warehouse equipment systems, broadening the relevant product scope beyond standalone tape products.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and R&D teams to map their product designs against each of the 11 asserted patents simultaneously, identify which claims survived the Federal Circuit’s affirmance, and flag design-around opportunities before the remand proceedings produce further claim clarification. Running a structured FTO now — while the remand is pending — provides a defensible record and informs product development decisions before the litigation landscape settles.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8088480 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit infringement appeals in industrial safety products
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving multi-patent assertions in industrial safety and floor marking tape technology, including comparable split-disposition outcomes.
What this case signals for the industrial floor marking tape IP landscape
An 11-patent Federal Circuit appeal with a split outcome is a rare and commercially significant event in the floor safety products sector.
Large patent portfolios create complex appellate risk even for patent holders
Asserting 11 patents in a single infringement action increases litigation leverage but also creates surface area for partial defeats on appeal. The Federal Circuit’s split disposition here — affirming some, vacating others — illustrates that portfolio breadth does not guarantee uniform appellate success. Each patent family in a multi-patent assertion should be stress-tested for independent validity and claim scope before appeal.
A vacatur and remand is not a defendant win — exposure continues
Defendants and their counsel should not characterise a partial vacatur as vindication. The remanded issues return to the district court, where the patent holder has another opportunity to establish infringement or damages under the Federal Circuit’s corrected framework. Companies in the Mighty Line floor tape supply chain should maintain freedom-to-operate monitoring until the remand is fully resolved.
Lowe v Shieldmark — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit issued a split ruling in Case No. 23-1786: ‘Affirmed in Part, Vacated and Remanded in Part.’ The court upheld certain lower-court findings while nullifying others and returning those issues for further proceedings. The basis of termination was recorded as ‘Appeal Dismissed in Part.’
Eleven US patents were asserted: US8088480, US5786028, US6120395, US0214664, US10214664, US8343292, US6180228, US10738220, US10728220, US5846651, and US8883290 — all relating to the Mighty Line floor marking tape product. The portfolio spans application dates from the mid-1990s through the mid-2010s.
Crown Equipment Corporation is a major warehouse forklift and materials handling equipment manufacturer. Its inclusion as a defendant alongside Shieldmark and Advanced Plastics suggests the asserted patents may cover floor marking tape products used in or alongside warehouse equipment systems, potentially extending liability beyond standalone tape manufacturers to system integrators and distributors.
A partial vacatur does not constitute a defendant win. The Federal Circuit nullified specific lower-court findings and returned those issues for reconsideration. Defendants Shieldmark, Advanced Plastics, and Crown Equipment face continued litigation on the remanded issues. Only the affirmed portions carry the finality of a Federal Circuit-endorsed judgment — the rest remains unresolved.
An affirmance at the Federal Circuit means the court found no reversible error in the lower-court analysis on those specific issues — which may include validity or infringement findings. It does not foreclose future IPR challenges at the USPTO on different grounds, but it does raise the practical bar for challenging the affirmed rulings. The vacated portions remain open and their enforceability has not yet been finally determined.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.