NG LLC v. CreatedHair Designs: Federal Circuit Affirms Non-Infringement of Wig Grip Patents
NG LLC appealed a district court summary judgment finding that CreatedHair’s Wig SECURE Crystal product did not infringe wig grip apparatus patents US10881159B2 and US10945477B2. The Federal Circuit affirmed, adopting the district court’s claim construction and upholding prosecution history estoppel to bar the doctrine of equivalents — ending NG LLC’s infringement case after 539 days on appeal.
Claim construction seals NG LLC’s fate at the Federal Circuit
NG LLC filed appeal No. 24-1599 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 26 March 2024, challenging a district court ruling that CreatedHair Designs LLC and CreatedHair Inc. did not infringe NG LLC’s wig grip apparatus patents — US10881159B2, US10945477B2, and design patent USD0879382S. The accused product was the Wig SECURE Crystal, a wig-securing device sold by the CreatedHair entities. NG LLC was represented by Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP; CreatedHair by Johnson Legal PLLC.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement on 16 September 2025. The court adopted the district court’s claim construction of the phrase ‘the wig grip apparatus terminates at the forward periphery.’ NG LLC had conceded that under this construction no literal infringement existed, leaving only a doctrine of equivalents theory — which the court rejected by upholding the district court’s application of prosecution history estoppel. All asserted claims of the ‘159 and ‘477 patents were found not infringed.
The 539-day duration from filing to decision is consistent with substantive Federal Circuit patent appeals requiring full briefing and oral argument consideration. The outcome suggests that claim language narrowed during prosecution created an estoppel that NG LLC could not overcome on equivalents — a risk that frequently arises when applicants make limiting amendments to secure allowance. The design patent USD0879382S does not appear to have been separately resolved in the Federal Circuit’s reasoning as recorded, leaving its precise disposition less clear from the public verdict text alone.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 539 days
539-day appeal — longer than the median Federal Circuit patent appeal (~400 days)
Federal Circuit affirms: what the non-infringement ruling means for both parties
Affirmance means no reversible error was found below
When the Federal Circuit affirms, it has reviewed the district court’s judgment — here, summary judgment of non-infringement — and found no legal error that would warrant reversal or remand. The appellate panel adopted the district court’s claim construction and agreed that prosecution history estoppel precluded NG LLC from extending its patent claims via the doctrine of equivalents. The lower court’s decision therefore stands as final and binding.
Affirmance — lower decision standsNG LLC’s enforcement path for these claims is effectively closed
With the Federal Circuit affirming non-infringement, NG LLC has exhausted its appellate options at this level. The patents US10881159B2 and US10945477B2 remain granted but the prosecution history estoppel finding signals that their enforceable scope against equivalent products may be constrained. Pursuing en banc rehearing or certiorari to the Supreme Court is theoretically available but statistically unlikely to succeed absent a circuit split or novel legal question.
Enforcement path closed vs. this productCreatedHair secures a definitive non-infringement ruling
CreatedHair Designs LLC and CreatedHair Inc. emerge with a Federal Circuit-level confirmation that the Wig SECURE Crystal does not infringe the asserted claims — under either literal infringement or the doctrine of equivalents. This ruling provides significant commercial certainty: the non-infringement finding is now final at the appellate level, reducing the litigation risk associated with continuing to manufacture and sell the accused product line.
Non-infringement confirmed at Federal CircuitProsecution history estoppel limits wig grip patent reach sector-wide
The ruling reinforces how prosecution-stage amendments constrain patent scope in product categories where design differentiation is incremental — such as wig accessories. Competitors and new entrants in the wig grip and hair accessory space can draw on this decision to assess whether their products fall outside narrowed claim boundaries. Companies holding similar wearable-accessory patents should audit their prosecution histories to understand how estoppel may limit future enforcement strategies.
Narrowed claim scope — sector-wide signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | NG LLC | Company | Wig grip apparatus patent holder — asserting US10881159B2, US10945477B2, and USD0879382SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | CREATEDHAIR DESIGNS, LLC | Company | Wig accessory manufacturer and distributor — maker of the accused Wig SECURE Crystal productSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | CreatedHair, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian Michalek | Attorney | Counsel for NG LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Elizabeth A. Thompson | Attorney | Counsel for NG LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph Kuo | Attorney | Counsel for NG LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP | Law Firm | Representing NG LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lance G. Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for CREATEDHAIR DESIGNS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Johnson Legal PLLC | Law Firm | Representing CREATEDHAIR DESIGNS, LLCSearch 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 affirmance rests on three discrete and sequentially conclusive findings: adoption of the district court’s claim construction of the forward-periphery limitation, NG LLC’s own concession of no literal infringement under that construction, and independent confirmation that prosecution history estoppel bars any doctrine of equivalents argument. The panel expressly noted it considered NG’s remaining arguments and found them unpersuasive — language indicating a full merits review rather than procedural dismissal. The ruling, which applies to all asserted claims of both the ‘159 and ‘477 patents, forecloses further challenge at this appellate level.
US10881159B2, US10945477B2 & USD0879382S — Wig Grip Apparatus Patents
US10881159B2 and US10945477B2 are utility patents covering wig grip apparatus technology — devices designed to secure wigs to the wearer’s head. The patents include structural claim language relating to how the apparatus terminates at the forward periphery, a limitation that became central to both the district court and Federal Circuit proceedings. USD0879382S is a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a wig grip apparatus. The utility patents were filed via applications US16/819024 and US16/276579 respectively, placing their priority in the late 2010s consumer hair accessory space.
Wig grip and head-securing accessory patents occupy a growing niche within the broader wearable consumer goods IP landscape, driven by demand from medical, fashion, and entertainment sectors. The claim scope of the ‘159 and ‘477 patents, as construed by two courts, appears narrower than NG LLC originally asserted — a signal that competitors with differentiated product geometries may have meaningful design-around opportunities. Businesses developing wig-securing or head-wearable products should evaluate prosecution histories of patents in this space before product launch.
Should you run an FTO against US10881159B2 and US10945477B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or importing wig grip apparatuses — particularly products that involve a band or frame that interfaces with the forward hairline — should assess freedom to operate against NG LLC’s patent portfolio. Although the Federal Circuit affirmed non-infringement for the Wig SECURE Crystal under a specific claim construction, the patents remain in force. Products with different geometries or structural configurations may interact differently with the claim language, and the prosecution history estoppel analysis is fact-specific to the accused product.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10881159B2 and US10945477B2 against your product’s technical features, flag relevant prior art, and surface related wig grip patents that may cover adjacent design choices. Eureka’s prosecution history analysis tools can also identify which amendments were made during examination — giving your legal team a head start on understanding the estoppel landscape before committing to a product design.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0879382S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit Patent Appeals in Consumer Accessory Technology
Cases at the Federal Circuit involving claim construction disputes and prosecution history estoppel in consumer wearable and accessory patent infringement actions.
What this case signals for the wearable hair accessory IP landscape
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance highlights structural risks in patent prosecution strategy and claim drafting for consumer accessory patents.
Prosecution amendments can silently cap your enforcement range
NG LLC’s inability to invoke the doctrine of equivalents illustrates that amendments made to secure allowance frequently create estoppel that is very difficult to escape on appeal. Patent owners in consumer goods and wearable accessory categories should model the equivalents risk at prosecution — not only at litigation — to avoid inadvertently surrendering commercially important scope.
Claim construction is the decisive battleground in accessory patent disputes
Both the district court and the Federal Circuit converged on the same construction of the forward-periphery limitation, and NG LLC conceded literal infringement was impossible under it. Investing in precise, commercially broad claim drafting — and stress-testing constructions against likely accused products before filing — is a higher-value activity than litigating construction after the fact.
NG v CREATEDHAIR — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement in favour of CreatedHair Designs LLC and CreatedHair Inc. The court adopted the district court’s claim construction of ‘the wig grip apparatus terminates at the forward periphery,’ accepted NG LLC’s concession of no literal infringement under that construction, and upheld prosecution history estoppel barring a doctrine of equivalents theory for patents US10881159B2 and US10945477B2.
Prosecution history estoppel prevents a patent owner from using the doctrine of equivalents to recapture claim scope surrendered during prosecution — typically through amendments made to overcome prior art or examiner rejections. In this case, the Federal Circuit found no error in the district court’s application of estoppel, meaning that amendments made during prosecution of NG LLC’s patents were deemed to have surrendered the equivalent scope that would have been needed to capture the Wig SECURE Crystal product.
NG LLC asserted three patents: utility patents US10881159B2 (application US16/819024) and US10945477B2 (application US16/276579), both directed to wig grip apparatus technology, and design patent USD0879382S (application US29/711414) covering the ornamental appearance of a wig grip apparatus. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance expressly addressed the utility patents; the design patent’s disposition is less explicitly detailed in the published verdict text.
The patents US10881159B2 and US10945477B2 remain granted and technically in force, but the Federal Circuit’s affirmance establishes that the Wig SECURE Crystal does not infringe them — under either a literal or equivalents theory — given the adopted claim construction and estoppel finding. This limits NG LLC’s ability to assert the same claims against products that share the structural profile of the Wig SECURE Crystal, and signals a narrower enforceable scope than NG LLC had originally contended.
The appeal ran for 539 days from filing on 26 March 2024 to decision on 16 September 2025. This duration is somewhat longer than the median Federal Circuit patent appeal, which typically resolves in approximately 12–18 months, suggesting the case involved full merits briefing and likely oral argument consideration. The extended duration is consistent with a substantive claim construction and prosecution history estoppel dispute rather than a summary procedural termination.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.