Lowe & Spota v. Shieldmark: Federal Circuit Affirms in Part, Vacates & Remands in Part
Clifford A. Lowe and Spota, LLC brought an infringement action asserting 11 patents covering floor marking tape technology against Shieldmark, Advanced Plastics, and Crown Equipment Corporation. After 684 days, the Federal Circuit issued a split ruling — affirming portions of the lower court decision while vacating and remanding others, leaving key liability questions unresolved.
A split Federal Circuit ruling leaves floor tape IP battle unresolved
Clifford A. Lowe and his licensing vehicle Spota, LLC filed this appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 10, 2023, asserting infringement of 11 patents spanning floor marking tape compositions, constructions, and adhesive systems. The defendants — Shieldmark, Inc., Advanced Plastics, Inc., and Crown Equipment Corporation — are commercial participants in the industrial floor marking and workplace safety signage market. The breadth of the patent portfolio asserted, covering filings from the mid-1990s through to a 2015 application, signals a long-running programme of IP development around this product category.
The Federal Circuit closed the case on March 24, 2025, issuing an order that affirmed the lower court in part but vacated and remanded in part. This split disposition means the appellate court found no reversible error on certain issues or claims, while identifying at least one legal or factual question that requires reconsideration at the district court level. The partial dismissal of the appeal further complicates the picture, suggesting procedural barriers prevented full merits review on some counts.
The 684-day appellate timeline is consistent with the complexity of a multi-patent, multi-defendant infringement action. The vacatur and remand component means litigation is not truly concluded — the remanded issues will return to the lower court for further proceedings. The public record does not reveal which specific patents or claim constructions were affirmed versus vacated, nor the precise grounds for partial dismissal, leaving the full commercial impact on each defendant uncertain at this stage.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in Part in 684 days
684 days — above the median for multi-patent Federal Circuit appeals
Federal Circuit’s split ruling: what affirmed, vacated, and remanded each mean
Affirmed in part: lower court findings stand on those issues
Where the Federal Circuit affirmed, it found no reversible error in the district court’s analysis — those rulings now carry the weight of two courts and are significantly harder to dislodge. Where the court vacated and remanded, it nullified the lower decision on those specific issues, sending them back for reconsideration. A partial dismissal means some appeal grounds were not reached on the merits at all.
Split appellate dispositionLowe & Spota: partial win preserves some rights, remand keeps others alive
The affirmance component confirms that at least part of Lowe and Spota’s patent position survived appellate scrutiny — those patents or claim constructions remain enforceable as adjudicated. The vacatur and remand, however, means the plaintiffs did not secure a full win; certain issues return to the lower court where the outcome remains open. The partial dismissal may have foreclosed some claims entirely on procedural grounds.
Partial enforcement preservedDefendants: relief on remanded issues, exposure remains on affirmed findings
Shieldmark, Advanced Plastics, and Crown Equipment secured a meaningful partial victory — the vacatur removes at least some adverse lower-court findings and returns those issues for fresh consideration. However, the affirmed portions bind them: any infringement or validity ruling confirmed by the Federal Circuit stands and cannot be relitigated. Continued exposure on remanded issues means litigation cost and uncertainty persist for all three defendants.
Partial reprieve, ongoing exposureIndustrial floor tape sector faces prolonged IP uncertainty
With 11 patents across a mature product category and a remand returning key questions to the district court, competitors and distributors in the floor marking tape space should treat this portfolio as actively litigated. The affirmed findings set a strengthened baseline for those patent claims; the remanded issues suggest claim construction or infringement analyses that remain contested. Product design-arounds and freedom-to-operate reviews against this portfolio carry elevated urgency pending the remand outcome.
Portfolio risk remains elevatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Clifford A. Lowe | Individual | Floor marking tape IP developer — holder of US8088480 and 10 related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Spota, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Shieldmark, Inc. | Company | Shieldmark Inc., Advanced Plastics Inc., and Crown Equipment Corp. — floor tape manufacturers and distributorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Advanced Plastics, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Crown Equipment Corporation | Company | Search 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 order — ‘AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART’ — is a hybrid appellate disposition that applies different legal outcomes to different portions of the record below. ‘Affirmed in part’ signals that the appellate panel applied deferential review — typically clear error for fact findings and de novo for claim construction — and found the lower court correct on those issues. ‘Vacated and remanded in part’ means the panel identified at least one reversible error or legal insufficiency, nullifying those specific lower-court findings and directing reconsideration. The practical effect is that this litigation is not fully resolved.
US8088480 and 10 related patents — floor marking tape compositions and constructions
The asserted portfolio spans 11 patents with priority dates ranging from the mid-1990s (US5786028, US5846651) through to applications filed in the 2010s (US10214664, US10728220, US10738220). This multi-decade family covers floor marking tape technology across compositions, adhesive systems, multilayer constructions, and surface treatments. The breadth of application numbers — including several continuation filings — suggests a deliberate prosecution strategy to extend protection as the product category evolved and commercial competition intensified.
For competitors in the industrial floor marking, workplace safety signage, and materials handling sectors, this portfolio represents a significant enforcement risk precisely because it encompasses both foundational compositions (mid-1990s patents) and more recent construction and process claims. The involvement of Crown Equipment Corporation as a defendant suggests the accused products are integrated into warehouse and logistics environments at scale. Any manufacturer, distributor, or OEM sourcing floor marking tape for industrial use should treat this actively litigated family as a material FTO concern pending the remand outcome.
Should you run an FTO against US8088480 and the Lowe/Spota floor tape portfolio?
Any company manufacturing, distributing, or procuring industrial floor marking tape for warehouse, logistics, or workplace safety applications faces direct exposure from this 11-patent portfolio. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of portions of the lower-court ruling means at least some claims have now survived two levels of judicial scrutiny — the highest standard of enforceability short of Supreme Court review. R&D teams developing adhesive tape systems, facility managers specifying floor marking products, and procurement teams sourcing from Shieldmark-adjacent suppliers should prioritise an FTO review before the remand proceedings conclude.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the 11 asserted patents against your product specifications, flagging overlapping claim elements across compositions, adhesive constructions, and surface treatment claims. Eureka also tracks the remand proceedings in real time, alerting you when district court decisions on the vacated issues are published — giving your legal and product teams advance notice of any new enforced claim scope before it affects your supply chain.
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 adhesive tape IP
Explore comparable multi-patent infringement appeals at the Federal Circuit involving adhesive tape, floor marking, and industrial surface marking technologies.
What this case signals for the industrial floor marking tape IP landscape
An 11-patent portfolio, three defendants, and a split Federal Circuit ruling create compounding uncertainty across the floor marking supply chain.
Multi-patent portfolios amplify appellate complexity and remand risk
When plaintiffs assert 11 patents simultaneously, the probability of a split appellate outcome rises sharply. Different patents may have different claim construction histories, priority dates, and validity records — making it difficult for any appellate court to issue a single clean ruling. This case is consistent with that pattern and signals that portfolio plaintiffs should expect prolonged, segmented resolutions.
Crown Equipment’s involvement raises the commercial stakes for the sector
Crown Equipment Corporation is a significant player in industrial materials handling and workplace equipment. Its presence as a defendant suggests the accused floor marking products are embedded in broader workplace safety and warehouse management systems. An adverse final ruling on remand could have downstream implications for supply arrangements and product specifications across the distribution chain.
Lowe v Shieldmark — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit issued a split ruling: affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part. This means the lower court’s decision was upheld on certain issues while being nullified and sent back for reconsideration on others. The partial dismissal indicates some appeal grounds were not reviewed on the merits. The case is not fully resolved — remanded issues return to the district court.
Eleven patents were asserted: US8088480, US5786028, US6120395, US0214664, US10214664, US8343292, US6180228, US10738220, US10728220, US5846651, and US8883290. All relate to floor marking tape technology, covering compositions, adhesive systems, multilayer constructions, and surface treatments across a patent family spanning the mid-1990s to the mid-2010s.
Vacatur nullifies the lower court’s ruling on those specific issues, meaning Shieldmark, Advanced Plastics, and Crown Equipment are not bound by those findings. The remand sends those issues back to the district court for fresh consideration. The defendants still face ongoing litigation risk on remanded issues while remaining bound by the affirmed portions of the lower decision.
The public record does not specify Crown Equipment’s precise role, but its involvement is consistent with it being a manufacturer, distributor, or user of the accused floor marking tape products in its industrial materials handling operations. Crown Equipment is a major forklift and warehouse equipment manufacturer, and floor marking tape is a standard component in warehouse safety systems.
The appeal was filed on May 10, 2023, and closed on March 24, 2025 — a duration of 684 days, approximately 22.5 months. This is above average for a Federal Circuit patent appeal and is consistent with the complexity of a multi-patent, multi-defendant case involving 11 asserted patents and three defendants represented by multiple law firms.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.