Shieldmark v. Lowe & Spota: Federal Circuit Affirms in Part, Vacates & Remands — 11 Patents at Stake
Shieldmark, Advanced Plastics, and Crown Equipment brought an infringement action against Clifford Lowe and Spota LLC over a portfolio of eleven floor marking tape patents. After 677 days, the Federal Circuit delivered a split appellate ruling — affirming some aspects of the lower court decision while vacating and remanding others for further proceedings.
Federal Circuit splits the baby on an 11-patent floor tape portfolio
Filed on 17 May 2023, Case No. 23-1893 brought Shieldmark Inc., Advanced Plastics Inc., and Crown Equipment Corporation as co-appellants before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellees were Clifford A. Lowe and Spota LLC. The underlying action concerned infringement of eleven patents covering floor marking tape — a specialised industrial adhesive tape product used in warehouse and facility safety marking — spanning compositions, adhesive formulations, and surface marking methods.
The Federal Circuit closed the case on 24 March 2025 with a split disposition: portions of the lower court ruling were affirmed, while other aspects were vacated and remanded for further consideration. The partial affirmance means certain findings in favour of one side now carry appellate finality, while the vacatur signals that the Federal Circuit found reversible error — or at minimum insufficient basis — in portions of the lower decision, requiring the district court to revisit those issues.
The 677-day duration is consistent with complex multi-patent appeals at the Federal Circuit, where voluminous claim construction records and multiple invalidity and infringement grounds extend briefing schedules. The partial remand means the underlying litigation is not fully resolved; the district court proceedings will resume on the vacated issues. What specific claims or parties the affirmance versus vacatur applied to is not fully disclosed in the public termination record, leaving the precise commercial impact on each appellant and appellee partially opaque.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in Part in 677 days
677 days — above the median for Federal Circuit patent appeals, suggesting substantial briefing complexity across an 11-patent portfolio
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 has two distinct legal effects. ‘Affirmed in part’ means the court found no reversible error in those specific portions of the lower court’s decision — those findings now carry appellate authority. ‘Vacated and remanded in part’ means the court nullified other portions, finding them legally or factually insufficient, and has directed the lower court to reconsider those issues. The case is therefore not fully resolved.
Partial remand — litigation continuesAppellants win on some claims — but remand keeps pressure alive
For Shieldmark, Advanced Plastics, and Crown Equipment, the partial affirmance secures at least some findings from the lower court, potentially preserving infringement liability on certain patents or claims. However, the vacatur means they did not achieve a clean appellate win. Issues sent back to the district court will require additional litigation spend, and the outcome on remanded issues remains uncertain. The enforceability of the portfolio as a whole is strengthened on affirmed claims only.
Partial win — remand pendingLowe and Spota escape some liability — but face renewed district court proceedings
For Clifford Lowe and Spota LLC, the vacatur represents a meaningful appellate success on the remanded portions — those specific findings against them are nullified. However, the affirmance on other portions confirms adverse lower court findings stand. The remand means Lowe and Spota must continue to defend in district court on the vacated issues, and they have not achieved final resolution of the dispute in their favour.
Partial relief — remand exposure remainsFloor marking tape IP: split ruling signals portfolio complexity
An 11-patent portfolio spanning floor marking tape compositions, adhesives, and methods is unusual in breadth for this product category. The Federal Circuit’s split ruling suggests the claims vary materially in strength — some withstanding appellate scrutiny, others not. Competitors in industrial safety marking and adhesive tape should monitor the remand proceedings closely, as the district court’s reconsidered findings will further define the scope of enforceable IP in this niche but commercially active sector.
Monitor remand — claim scope in fluxFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shieldmark, Inc. | Company | Floor marking tape patent holders — co-appellants asserting portfolio of 11 industrial adhesive tape patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Advanced Plastics, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Crown Equipment Corporation | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Clifford A. Lowe | Individual | Clifford A. Lowe and Spota LLC — appellees alleged to infringe floor marking tape patent portfolioSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Spota, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David J. Sheikh | Attorney | Counsel for Shieldmark, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Lee Sheikh & Haan LLC | Law Firm | Representing Shieldmark, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ray L. Weber | Attorney | Counsel for Clifford A. LoweSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Renner, Kenner, Greive, Bobak, Taylor & Weber, LPA | Law Firm | Representing Clifford A. LoweSearch 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 compound appellate disposition that avoids a binary outcome across an eleven-patent record. At the Federal Circuit, affirmance requires the panel to find no reversible legal error in the affirmed portions under the applicable standard of review (de novo for claim construction, substantial evidence for jury findings). The vacatur, by contrast, signals that at least one discrete issue failed that standard, warranting remand rather than outright reversal. The partial dismissal noted in the basis of termination suggests certain appellate issues were not reached on the merits.
US8088480 and 10 further patents — floor marking tape compositions and adhesive systems
The asserted portfolio spans eleven US patents across multiple filing generations, with application numbers ranging from the mid-1990s (US08/708535 — granted as US5786028) through to post-2010 continuations (US16/534511 — granted as US10728220). This breadth of priority dates suggests the portfolio was built through layered continuation and divisional prosecution, progressively claiming different aspects of floor marking tape technology: base compositions, adhesive chemistries, surface preparation methods, and structural tape constructions. The technology domain sits at the intersection of polymer chemistry and industrial safety equipment.
Floor marking tape is a commercially significant product in warehouse, manufacturing, and logistics environments — where OSHA and lean manufacturing standards require durable, clearly visible floor lane and hazard markings. A portfolio of this depth, co-owned and enforced by Shieldmark and Advanced Plastics with Crown Equipment as a co-plaintiff, suggests the patents underpin products actively sold into the materials handling sector. Competitors developing or sourcing floor marking tape for industrial applications face non-trivial FTO risk on the claims the Federal Circuit has now affirmed, and should monitor the remand for resolution of the vacated issues.
Should your R&D team run an FTO against this 11-patent floor marking tape portfolio?
Any manufacturer, distributor, or OEM sourcing floor marking tape for warehouse, logistics, or manufacturing floor applications should treat this portfolio as an active FTO risk. The Federal Circuit’s partial affirmance means at least a subset of claims have now cleared appellate scrutiny and carry enhanced enforceability. Product teams developing adhesive tape systems, polymer-based floor marking solutions, or facility safety marking products — particularly those supplied into materials handling environments — should map their designs against the affirmed claims before the remand proceedings conclude.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to run structured freedom-to-operate queries across all eleven patent numbers in this portfolio simultaneously, mapping claim scope against your product specifications and identifying design-around opportunities. Eureka’s patent landscape view also surfaces continuation applications filed from the same priority chains — critical when a portfolio of this vintage may still have pending claims that could issue in broadened form after the Federal Circuit’s ruling.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8088480 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals in industrial adhesive and floor marking tape IP
Explore Federal Circuit infringement appeals in the floor marking tape, industrial adhesive, and polymer surface marking sectors with comparable multi-patent portfolio dynamics.
What this case signals for the industrial floor marking tape IP landscape
A split Federal Circuit ruling across 11 patents reveals uneven claim strength in floor marking tape IP — and a remand that keeps the dispute live.
Multi-patent portfolios create appellate fragmentation risk
When eleven patents are asserted in a single infringement action, the probability of a split appellate outcome rises sharply. Different claim constructions, priority dates, and validity records mean each patent effectively travels its own appellate path. IP owners asserting large floor marking or industrial tape portfolios should map which claims carry the strongest intrinsic evidence before committing to full-portfolio enforcement.
Vacatur on remand reopens commercial uncertainty for both sides
The partial vacatur in this case means neither party can fully price the litigation risk or book the win. For in-house teams at competing floor marking manufacturers, this signals that the enforceability of key patents in this space is still being adjudicated. Monitoring the remand proceedings at the district court level is commercially prudent for any company operating in the industrial safety tape segment.
Shieldmark v Clifford — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit issued a split disposition on 24 March 2025: affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part. This means certain lower court findings in the floor marking tape infringement action were upheld, while others were nullified and sent back to the district court for further proceedings. Neither party achieved a complete appellate victory.
Eleven US patents were asserted: US8088480, US5786028, US6120395, US0214664, US10214664, US8343292, US6180228, US10738220, US10728220, US5846651, and US8883290. The portfolio covers floor marking tape compositions, adhesive systems, structural tape constructions, and related methods across filing generations spanning the mid-1990s to the 2010s.
Vacatur nullifies the lower court’s decision on the affected issues, meaning those findings have no continuing legal effect. ‘Remanded’ means the Federal Circuit has directed the lower court — typically the originating district court — to reconsider those specific issues under correct legal standards. The litigation therefore continues at the district court level on remanded issues, and the overall dispute is not fully resolved.
Crown Equipment Corporation is a major forklift and materials handling equipment manufacturer. Its involvement as a co-appellant suggests it has a commercial or licensing interest in the floor marking tape patents at issue — likely because the asserted patents cover tape products used in warehouse and logistics environments where Crown’s equipment operates. The public record does not specify whether Crown holds a licence or co-ownership interest.
The appeal ran for 677 days from filing (17 May 2023) to closure (24 March 2025). Federal Circuit patent appeals typically resolve in 12–24 months; 677 days (approximately 22 months) falls within the upper range of normal but is consistent with cases involving large patent portfolios, extensive claim construction records, and multiple asserted patents requiring separate appellate analysis.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.