Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01410/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01410-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.
Appellant
Telebrands Corporation
Appellant
Tinnus Enterprises, LLC
Appellee
Zuru Ltd.
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC, ZURU LTD.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees

v.

TELEBRANDS CORPORATION, BED BATH & 

BEYOND, INC.,

Defendants-Appellants

______________________ 

2016-1410

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Texas in No. 6:15-cv-00551-RWS-JDL, 

Judge Robert Schroeder, III.

______________________ 

Decided: January 24, 2017

______________________ 

 THOMAS MANSFIELD DUNLAP, Dunlap Bennett & 

Ludwig PLLC, Leesburg, VA, argued for plaintiffsappellees. Also represented by DAVID LUDWIG, ERIC 

LORENZ OLAVSON, ROBERT D. SPENDLOVE; CORTLAND 

CHRISTOPHER PUTBRESE, Richmond, VA.

 DAVID MICHAEL UNDERHILL, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, 

LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant 

Telebrands Corporation. Also represented by STACEY K.

GRIGSBY, AMY LYNN NEUHARDT; DAVID BOIES, Armonk, 

NY; ELANA ARAJ, Cooper & Dunham, LLP, New York, NY. 

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/24/2017
2 TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION

 ROBERT THOMAS MALDONADO, ELANA ARAJ, Cooper & 

Dunham, LLP, New York, NY, appeared for defendantappellant Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. 

______________________ 

Before MOORE, WALLACH, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

STOLL, Circuit Judge. 

This is an appeal from the grant of a preliminary injunction. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled for the patentee, Tinnus 

Enterprises, LLC, and entered a preliminary injunction 

barring Telebrands Corporation from selling its accused 

product, Balloon Bonanza, or any colorable imitation 

thereof. Telebrands alleges that the district court abused 

its discretion by concluding that (1) the asserted claims 

were likely infringed; (2) the claims were not vulnerable 

on indefiniteness or obviousness grounds; and (3) Tinnus 

made a showing of irreparable harm. For the reasons 

stated below, we disagree with Telebrands and affirm the 

district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction.

BACKGROUND

Tinnus Enterprises, LLC produces a toy for filling water balloons covered by U.S. Patent No. 9,051,066, which 

it calls “Bunch O Balloons.” Telebrands Corporation sells 

a competing product, “Balloon Bonanza.” Both products 

attach to a hose and fill multiple water balloons at once 

by channeling the water into the balloons through a set of 

hollow tubes. A side-by-side comparison of the rival

products is shown below:

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/24/2017
TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION 3

Appellee Br. 11.

Tinnus and ZURU Ltd.1 (collectively, “Tinnus”) sued 

Telebrands and Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. (collectively, 

“Telebrands”) for infringement of the ’066 patent and 

subsequently moved for a preliminary injunction. The 

Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation 

(“R&R”) in which he recommended granting Tinnus’s 

motion. Tinnus Enters., LLC v. Telebrands Corp., No. 15-

00551, 2015 WL 11089479 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 11, 2015)

(Magistrate Op.). The district court overruled Telebrands’

objections to the R&R, adopted the R&R’s findings, and 

granted Tinnus’s motion. Tinnus Enters., LLC v. Telebrands Corp., No. 15-00551, 2015 WL 11089480 (E.D. 

Tex. Dec. 2, 2015). Shortly thereafter, the Patent Trial 

and Appeal Board instituted a Post-Grant Review proceeding for the ’066 patent, finding all claims were more 

likely than not invalid based on the same arguments 

considered by the district court. 

I. The ’066 Patent

The ’066 patent relates to a system and method for 

simultaneously filling multiple containers with fluid. ’066 

 

1 ZURU is the exclusive licensee of all present and 

future patent rights owned by Tinnus that relate to the 

Bunch O Balloons product. 

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/24/2017
4 TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION

patent col. 1 ll. 19–21. One application of the ’066 patent 

is the mass-filling of water balloons, as shown in the 

embodiment depicted in Figure 1: 

This embodiment includes a housing 12 with two ends: 

end A is removably attached to a fluid source, e.g., hose

14, and end B is attached to a plurality of hollow tubes 16. 

Id. col. 2 ll. 35–37. A plurality of containers 18—in this 

instance, balloons—are clamped to the tubes 16 using 

elastic valves 20, which can include elastic fasteners, such 

as O-rings. Id. col. 2 ll. 51–59. The patent refers to the 

force applied by the elastic valves to keep the containers 

attached to the tubes as the “connecting force.” Id. col. 3 

ll. 52–64. Once the fluid source is turned on, multiple 

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/24/2017
TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION 5

balloons are filled simultaneously: fluid flows from hose 

14, through the housing 12, and into the containers 18 

through the tubes 16. Id. col. 3 ll. 41–42. 

The ’066 patent teaches three ways to overcome the 

connecting force such that the containers detach from the 

tubes. These include: (1) pulling the containers away 

from the tubes, id. col. 3 ll. 48–51; (2) shaking the device 

to overcome the connecting force holding the containers to 

the tubes, id. col. 3 ll. 52–57; and (3) allowing the containers to fall off due to gravity, id. col. 3 ll. 65–67. After 

being detached from the tubes using any of the abovedescribed methods, the elastic valve constricts and seals 

the balloon. Id. col. 4 ll. 64–67. 

Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and it recites:

1. An apparatus comprising:

a housing comprising an opening at a first end, 

and a plurality of holes extending through a 

common face of the housing at a second end;

a plurality of flexible hollow tubes, each hollow 

tube attached to the housing at a respective one of 

the holes at the second end of the housing;

a plurality of containers, each container removably attached to a respective one of the hollow 

tubes; and

a plurality of elastic fasteners, each elastic fastener clamping a respective one of the plurality of 

containers to a corresponding hollow tube, and 

each elastic fastener configured to provide a connecting force that is not less than a weight of one 

of the containers when substantially filled with 

water, and to automatically seal its respective one 

of the plurality of containers upon detaching the 

container from its corresponding hollow tube, such 

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/24/2017
6 TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION

that shaking the hollow tubes in a state in which 

the containers are substantially filled with water 

overcomes the connecting force and causes the containers to detach from the hollow tubes thereby 

causing the elastic fasteners to automatically seal 

the containers,

wherein the apparatus is configured to fill the 

containers substantially simultaneously with a 

fluid. 

Id. col. 6 ll. 30–53 (emphasis added to indicate disputed 

limitations). 

II. District Court Proceedings

Tinnus filed its patent infringement suit against Telebrands on the day the ’066 patent issued and filed a 

motion for a preliminary injunction nine days later. The 

Magistrate Judge reviewed the briefing and held a hearing to evaluate evidence on the preliminary injunction 

factors before recommending that Tinnus’s motion be 

granted. 

In his infringement analysis, the Magistrate Judge

reviewed Tinnus’s claim chart, which mapped the claim 

limitations onto the Balloon Bonanza product. The claim 

chart explained why each limitation was met and included photographs of the allegedly infringing product, images 

from the product instruction manual, screenshots of the 

product, and related product videos. Telebrands countered that its product did not infringe because its tubes 

can slide in and out of the housing and therefore are not 

“attached” to the housing, as required by the claims. 

Relying on the plain and ordinary meaning of “attached”—“connected or joined to something”—the Magistrate Judge concluded that the “tubes of the Balloon 

Bonanza product are connected to the housing holes in 

order for the product to function properly.” Magistrate 

Op., 2015 WL 11089479, at *4. Telebrands also asserted 

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 6 Filed: 01/24/2017
TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION 7

that disputes over the meaning of “not less than” in 

conjunction with the term “connecting force” meant that 

the elastic fastener limitation was not met.2 The Magistrate Judge, however, found that this argument was 

actually premised on Telebrands’ contention that shaking 

is not required to detach the balloons from the tubes in 

the Balloon Bonanza product. Because the Balloon Bonanza manual instructs the user to “[t]urn off water and 

give balloons a shake to release,” id. (alteration in original) (quoting J.A. 447), the Magistrate Judge concluded 

that Balloon Bonanza likely met the disputed limitation, 

regardless of how it construed “connecting force” or “not 

less than.” 

The Magistrate Judge also found that Telebrands’ indefiniteness and enablement arguments failed to raise a 

substantial question of validity. First, Telebrands contended that the term “substantially filled” was indefinite 

because it required subjectivity in determining when the 

container had become substantially filled. The Magistrate Judge disagreed, noting that there is no per se rule 

that the term “substantially” is indefinite. The Magistrate Judge further identified “specific parameters” in the 

claims describing how to determine whether a container is 

substantially filled—for example, “when the ‘water overcomes the connecting force and causes the containers to 

detach from the hollow tubes.’” Id. at *5 (quoting ’066 

patent col. 6 ll. 48–52). Second, Telebrands alleged that 

the term “connecting force” was not enabled because the 

’066 patent never describes the type of force where the 

connecting force is not less than the weight of the con-

 

2 This limitation requires “each elastic fastener configured to provide a connecting force that is not less than 

a weight of one of the containers when substantially filled 

with water.” Magistrate Op., 2015 WL 11089479, at *4 

(quoting ’066 patent col. 6 ll. 41–44).

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 7 Filed: 01/24/2017
8 TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION

tainer, i.e., when the container will not detach from the

tube. The Magistrate Judge disagreed because claim 1

itself recites a shaking limitation for detaching the containers when the connecting force is not less than the 

weight of the containers when substantially filled with 

water, which was consistent with the teachings in the 

specification. 

Next, Telebrands argued that claim 1 was obvious

over U.S. Patent No. 5,826,803 (“Cooper”) in view of U.S. 

Patent Publication No. 2013/0118640 (“Saggio”), as well 

as Cooper in view of Saggio and U.S. Patent Publication 

No. 2005/0004430 (“Lee”).3 Cooper discloses a garden 

sprinkler, as shown in Figure 4 below, that attaches to a 

garden hose and has multiple bendable tubes 18. ’803 

patent col. 2 ll. 22–28, col. 3 ll. 19–23.

Saggio teaches a system, shown in Figure 7 below, that 

fills multiple tie-less water balloons simultaneously using 

a one-way valve, as depicted in Figure 5 reproduced 

 

3 Telebrands offered additional obviousness combinations based on other references at the district court 

level, but it does not raise them on appeal.

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 8 Filed: 01/24/2017
TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION 9

below. When water flows into the balloon through channel 20, the water pressure pushes seal 16 and inner 

membrane 18 up against the outer wall of the balloon 12, 

thereby locking in the water and preventing it from 

escaping. J.A. 741. 

Lee discloses a method and apparatus for endoscopically 

inserting a balloon into a person’s stomach to treat obesity. J.A. 753. As shown in Figure 6, a balloon is attached 

to the inner guide pipe 3 using a rubber band 2 with a 

high elastic force that stably binds the balloon to the 

inner guide pipe when it is expanded. J.A. 754. The 

outer guide pipe 4 can slide forward towards the balloon 

once the endoscope and balloon are properly placed inside 

the stomach, which pushes the rubber band off of inner 

guide pipe 3 and seals the balloon. Id.

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 9 Filed: 01/24/2017
10 TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION

The Magistrate Judge found the combination of 

Cooper and Saggio deficient because neither reference 

disclosed the required “elastic fasteners.” The combination of Cooper and Saggio with Lee fared no better because the Magistrate Judge found no evidence that Lee’s 

rubber band would provide the claimed connecting force. 

Moreover, the Magistrate Judge was not convinced that a 

person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have 

been motivated to combine Lee with Cooper and Saggio 

because the references come from diverse fields: endoscopic balloon insertion devices for obesity treatment, garden 

sprinklers, and water balloon filling systems, respectively. 

Finally, even if Telebrands were able to establish a prima 

facie case of obviousness, the Magistrate Judge noted that 

secondary considerations, such as commercial success and 

copying, would be relevant because the Balloon Bonanza 

product appeared to be “a near identical replica” of the 

patented Bunch O Balloons product. Magistrate Op., 

2015 WL 11089479, at *7. 

With respect to irreparable harm, the Magistrate 

Judge found evidence of price erosion, consumer confusion, reputational harm, and loss of goodwill based on

customer calls, emails, and online reviews. As evidence of

price erosion, the Magistrate Judge explained that, while

ZURU initially sold Bunch O Balloons for $17 in August 

2014, in response to direct competition from Balloon 

Bonanza, ZURU reduced the price of Bunch O Balloons to 

$12.99, and eventually to $9.99 by mid-2015. According 

to the Magistrate Judge, the “market entry and continually reduced sale prices of Telebrands’ allegedly infringing 

product has driven down the price at which the Bunch O 

Balloons product has sold,” leading to the “harm that is 

ultimately irreparable here” in the form of the “now 

lowered price of sale for the present monopoly right.” Id.

at *8 (citing Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prods. Co., 

717 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Where two companies are in competition against one another, the patentee 

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 10 Filed: 01/24/2017
TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION 11

suffers the harm—often irreparable—of being forced to 

compete against products that incorporate and infringe its 

own patented inventions.”)). 

To establish consumer confusion, reputational harm, 

and loss of good will, Tinnus provided evidence of conversations and reviews from confused customers. For example, the Magistrate Judge cited evidence that one 

customer called ZURU to inquire about her product order

when, in fact, the customer had purchased Balloon Bonanza instead and that another customer left a review 

online stating “the inventor of the Balloon Bonanza who 

invented this product was formerly called Bunch O Balloons.” Id. Customers also sent emails to Tinnus asking 

whether Balloon Bonanza was invented by Mr. Malone, 

Tinnus’s founder, and wondering whether he had licensed 

his invention to Telebrands. This evidence convinced the 

Magistrate Judge that consumers were confused about 

which product is sold by which company and that the 

patented Bunch O Balloons product had “been diluted in 

the minds of the consuming public.” Id. Aside from the 

consumer confusion, the false association between the 

products harmed Tinnus because Bunch O Balloons 

received better ratings than Balloon Bonanza on Amazon.com and ToysRUs.com. Even though most of these 

examples pre-dated the issuance of the ’066 patent, the 

Magistrate Judge found that several of the harms, including customer confusion, were ongoing. 

The Magistrate Judge also concluded that the balance 

of hardships and public interest factors weighed in Tinnus’s favor due to the relative size of the parties and the 

strong public interest in enforcing valid patents. Because 

Tinnus established all four factors required for a preliminary injunction, the Magistrate Judge recommended 

granting Tinnus’s motion.

Telebrands timely filed its objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, alleging that it erred (1) by failing to 

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 11 Filed: 01/24/2017
12 TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION

provide a claim construction for the “attached,” “connecting force,” “elastic fastener,” and “shaking” limitations; (2) 

by improperly shifting the burden of proof to Telebrands 

on infringement and invalidity; and (3) by relying on

insufficient evidence to support findings of commercial 

success and copying.4 Notably, Telebrands did not object 

to the Magistrate Judge’s indefiniteness ruling or its 

rejection of Telebrands’ obviousness arguments. The 

district court overruled each of the objections, adopted the 

R&R’s findings, and entered a preliminary injunction. 

III. PTAB Proceedings 

Operating in parallel to the district court proceeding 

was Telebrands’ PGR petition seeking to invalidate the

’066 patent. The PTAB, relying on the same evidence and 

arguments before the district court, instituted review on 

all claims of the ’066 patent shortly after the district court 

granted Tinnus’s request for a preliminary injunction.5

The PTAB found that claim 1’s “shake-to-detach” feature6 was likely indefinite because the specification and 

 

4 Telebrands also objected to the R&R’s findings 

with respect to irreparable harm, but this portion of its 

objections was not included in the appellate record. See 

Defendants’ Objections to the Report and Recommendation Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 9) at 4–5, Tinnus Enters., LLC v. 

Telebrands Corp., No. 15-00551 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 25, 2015), 

ECF No. 70. 

5 The PTAB instituted review for claims 1–6, 8, and 

10–14. Tinnus disclaimed claims 7 and 9. Telebrands 

Corp. v. Tinnus Enters., LLC, PGR2015-18, 2016 WL 

270152, at *1 n.1 (PTAB Jan. 4, 2016) (Institution Decision). 

6 The PTAB defined the following italicized claim 

language as the shake-to-detach feature: “each elastic 

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 12 Filed: 01/24/2017
TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION 13

prior art both fail to provide “any objective standard for 

measuring the scope of ‘filled’ or ‘substantially filled,’” and 

the specification sets forth no limit on the amount of 

shaking needed to detach a filled container from the tube. 

Institution Decision, 2016 WL 270152, at *7–8.7 The 

PTAB also found that a combination of Cooper, Saggio, 

and Lee would likely render claim 1 obvious. Id. at *14. 

According to the PTAB, a POSA would have combined 

Saggio with Cooper to create a multi-balloon filling assembly by “attach[ing] balloons to the ends of the flexible 

tubes of Cooper’s sprinkler” and would have added Lee’s 

mechanism for clamping and sealing the balloons once 

filled because it was “reasonably pertinent to a particular 

problem the inventor of the ’066 patent was trying to 

solve.” Id. at *13. 

Telebrands appeals the preliminary injunction entered by the district court. We have jurisdiction pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and (c)(1).

 

fastener configured to provide a connecting force that is 

not less than a weight of one of the containers when 

substantially filled with water, . . . such that shaking the 

hollow tubes in a state in which the containers are substantially filled with water overcomes the connecting force 

and causes the containers to detach from the hollow 

tubes.” Id. at *7 (alteration in original).

7 We are aware that the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on December 30, 2016, concluding that the 

claims of the ’066 patent are indefinite. The PTAB’s 

decision is not binding on this court, and based on the 

record before us and the applicable standard of review, it 

does not persuade us that the district court abused its 

discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. The 

parties are, of course, free to ask the district court to 

reconsider its preliminary injunction in light of the 

PTAB’s Decision. 

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 13 Filed: 01/24/2017
14 TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Telebrands challenges the district court’s

conclusions on likelihood of success on the merits—

including its findings on infringement and invalidity—as 

well as its conclusions on irreparable harm, which we 

address in turn.

“A decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction is 

within the sound discretion of the district court, based 

upon its assessment of four factors: (1) the likelihood of 

the patentee’s success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm 

if the injunction is not granted; (3) the balance of hardships between the parties; and (4) the public interest.” 

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Kraft Foods Glob., Inc., 549 F.3d 

842, 847 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass 

Hut Int’l, 316 F.3d 1331, 1338–39 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). With 

respect to establishing a likelihood of success on the 

merits, “the patentee seeking a preliminary injunction in 

a patent infringement suit must show that it will likely 

prove infringement, and that it will likely withstand 

challenges, if any, to the validity of the patent.” Titan 

Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc., 566 F.3d 1372, 1376 

(Fed. Cir. 2009). An accused infringer “can defeat a 

showing of likelihood of success on the merits by demonstrating a substantial question of validity or infringement.” Trebro Mfg., Inc. v. Firefly Equip., LLC, 748 F.3d 

1159, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Aria Diagnostics, Inc. 

v. Sequenom, Inc., 726 F.3d 1296, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). 

In general, we review preliminary injunctions using 

the law of the regional circuit—here, the Fifth Circuit—

because “[t]he grant, denial, or modification of a preliminary injunction . . . is not unique to patent law.” Id.

(alteration in original) (quoting Aevoe Corp. v. AE Tech 

Co., 727 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). “However, the 

Federal Circuit has itself built a body of precedent applying the general preliminary injunction considerations to a 

large number of factually variant patent cases, and gives 

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 14 Filed: 01/24/2017
TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION 15

dominant effect to Federal Circuit precedent insofar as it 

reflects considerations specific to patent issues.” Murata 

Mach. USA v. Daifuku Co., 830 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 

2016) (quoting Trebro, 748 F.3d at 1165). Both the Fifth 

Circuit and the Federal Circuit review preliminary injunctions for an abuse of discretion. See Sepulvado v. 

Jindal, 729 F.3d 413, 417 (5th Cir. 2013); see also Procter 

& Gamble, 549 F.3d at 845. A party can establish an 

abuse of discretion in the preliminary injunction context 

“by showing that the court made a clear error of judgment 

in weighing relevant factors or exercised its discretion 

based upon an error of law or clearly erroneous factual 

findings.” Abbott Labs. v. Andrx Pharm., Inc., 452 F.3d 

1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Polymer Techs., Inc. 

v. Bridwell, 103 F.3d 970, 973 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). 

Under Fifth Circuit law, where a party fails to object 

to a magistrate judge’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, 

or recommendation to the district court, plain error review applies to those unobjected-to factual findings and 

legal conclusions adopted by the district court. Douglass 

v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 

1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending time to file objections 

from ten to fourteen days). “To prevail under [the plain 

error] standard, the appellant ‘must show (1) that an 

error occurred; (2) that the error was plain, which means 

clear or obvious; (3) the plain error must affect substantial rights; and (4) not correcting the error would seriously 

impact the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of 

judicial proceedings.’” Ortiz v. City of San Antonio Fire 

Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822, 825–26 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting 

Septimus v. Univ. of Hous., 399 F.3d 601, 607 (5th Cir.

2005)). “When the nature of the claimed error is a question of fact, however, the possibility that such a finding 

could rise to the level of obvious error required to meet 

part of the standard for plain error is remote.” Casas v. 

Aduddell, 404 F. App’x 879, 881 (5th Cir. 2010). 

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 15 Filed: 01/24/2017
16 TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION

I. Patent Infringement

On appeal, Telebrands first faults the district court 

for failing to construe the terms “not less than” and “connecting force.” Telebrands also alleges clear error in the 

district court’s conclusions that the Balloon Bonanza

tubes are “attached” to the housing and meet the shake to 

detach limitation. For the reasons explained below, none 

of these arguments are persuasive.

An infringement analysis involves the two-step process of “construing the claims and comparing the properly 

construed claims to the accused product.” Advanced Steel 

Recovery, LLC v. X-Body Equip., Inc., 808 F.3d 1313, 1316 

(Fed. Cir. 2015). Infringement is a question of fact, which 

we review on appeal for clear error. See AstraZeneca LP 

v. Apotex, Inc., 633 F.3d 1042, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Contrary to Telebrands’ argument, the R&R, which 

was adopted by the district court, did not refuse to construe the terms “not less than” and “connecting force.” 

Instead, the R&R acknowledged Telebrands’ disagreement regarding those terms but concluded that Tinnus 

was likely to succeed on its infringement claim “irrespective of the interpretation of these claim terms.” Magistrate Op., 2015 WL 11089479, at *4. The R&R reached 

this conclusion because it found that Telebrands’ claim 

construction argument hinged on the contention that 

shaking is not required to detach the balloons from the 

tubes. Because the Balloon Bonanza instruction manual 

tells users to “[t]urn off water and give balloons a shake to 

release,” id. (alteration in original), the Magistrate Judge 

determined that Telebrands’ position conflicted with the 

record evidence and failed to demonstrate that Tinnus 

was unlikely to succeed on its infringement claim. It was 

not clear error for the district court to adopt this finding. 

Next, Telebrands challenges the district court’s application of the claim term “attached” to the Balloon Bonanza product because its tubes allegedly “do not connect or 

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 16 Filed: 01/24/2017
TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION 17

join to the housing, but rather slide in and out of the holes 

in the common face of the housing.” Appellant Br. 24–25. 

The R&R applied the plain and ordinary meaning for the 

term “attached,” i.e., “connected or joined to something,” 

and found that the Balloon Bonanza product’s tubes must 

be “connected to” the housing’s holes in order for it to 

function properly. Magistrate Op., 2015 WL 11089479, at 

*4 (citing Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attached

(last visited Dec. 19, 2016)). This must be so, according to 

the R&R, because the housing accepts water from the 

hose at one end and sends the water through the holes at 

the other end, which are connected to hollow tubes for 

filling the balloons. The R&R’s analysis of the “attached” 

limitation is reasonable, and the district court’s adoption 

of it does not constitute clear error. 

Finally, Telebrands alleges that each claim limitation 

must be found in the accused product itself, and that it 

was clear error for the Magistrate Judge to rely on Balloon Bonanza’s instruction manual to satisfy the shaking 

limitation. We disagree. The instructions for the Balloon 

Bonanza product are at least circumstantial evidence of 

infringement for any claim elements taught by those 

materials. A patentee is entitled to rely on circumstantial 

evidence to establish infringement: “If [Defendant] is 

arguing that proof of inducing infringement or direct 

infringement requires direct, as opposed to circumstantial 

evidence, we must disagree. It is hornbook law that direct 

evidence of a fact is not necessary.” Moleculon Research 

Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 1986),

abrogated on other grounds by Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. 

Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), as 

recognized in VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 

759 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Indeed, this court 

has previously approved of the use of instruction manuals 

to demonstrate direct infringement by customers in the 

context of induced infringement. Golden Blount, Inc. v. 

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 17 Filed: 01/24/2017
18 TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION

Robert H. Peterson Co., 438 F.3d 1354, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 

2006) (“We reject [Defendant]’s argument that [the patentee] could not rely on the instruction sheets to prove 

acts of direct infringement by end-users.”); see also

Moleculon, 793 F.2d at 1272 (affirming district court’s 

finding of induced infringement based, in part, on instruction sheet). 

The cases Telebrands cites to the contrary are not 

persuasive. MicroStrategy stands for the unremarkable 

proposition that every claim limitation must be met to 

establish literal infringement and says nothing about 

product instructions. MicroStrategy Inc. v. Bus. Objects, 

S.A., 429 F.3d 1344, 1352–53 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The pertinent portion of the Vita-Mix case relates to an induced 

infringement analysis where the Plaintiff attempted to 

use the accused infringer’s instructions to establish an 

intent to induce infringement. Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic 

Holding, Inc., 581 F.3d 1317, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 

There, we disregarded the instructions because they did 

not support the inference of intent to infringe, not because

reliance on the instructions would be legally improper. 

Id. at 1328–29. We are aware of no case law prohibiting a 

court from relying on product instructions to find direct 

infringement. Accordingly, the district court did not

clearly err in relying on Telebrands’ instruction manual 

as part of its infringement analysis. 

II. Patent Validity

“The burden on the accused infringer to show a substantial question of invalidity at [the preliminary injunction] stage is lower than what is required to prove 

invalidity at trial.” Altana Pharma AG v. Teva Pharm. 

USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 999, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “Vulnerability is the issue at the preliminary injunction stage, 

while validity is the issue at trial.” Amazon.com, Inc. v. 

Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1359 (Fed. Cir.

2001). Telebrands contends that the Magistrate Judge 

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 18 Filed: 01/24/2017
TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION 19

improperly shifted the burden of proving invalidity to 

Telebrands, rather than requiring Tinnus to establish a 

likelihood of success in proving the patent’s validity. This 

argument is not compelling. 

Each issued patent carries with it a presumption of 

validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. Titan Tire, 566 F.3d at

1376–77. This presumption is sufficient to establish a 

likelihood of success on the validity issue, absent a challenge by the accused infringer. Id. at 1377. Where the 

alleged infringer attacks the validity of the patent, “the 

burden is on the challenger to come forward with evidence 

of invalidity,” which the patentee must then rebut. Id. at 

1377–78. “[I]f the trial court concludes there is a ‘substantial question’ concerning the validity of the patent, 

meaning that the alleged infringer has presented an 

invalidity defense that the patentee has not shown lacks 

substantial merit, it necessarily follows that the patentee 

has not succeeded in showing it is likely to succeed at trial 

on the merits of the validity issue.” Id. at 1379. The 

district court properly applied this analytical framework. 

A. Indefiniteness 

Telebrands contends that the claim term “substantially filled” is indefinite because a POSA would not be able 

to determine whether an expandable container meets this 

limitation.8

“[A] patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, 

read in light of the specification delineating the patent, 

and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasona-

 

8 Telebrands also argues that “connecting force” is 

indefinite, but its argument turns on the indefiniteness of 

“substantially filled.” See Appellant Br. 14 (“Without 

knowing what volume of water constitutes ‘substantially 

filled,’ one skilled in the art cannot know its weight, thus 

rendering the ‘connecting force’ indefinite.”).

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 19 Filed: 01/24/2017
20 TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION

ble certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of 

the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 

134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014). Because Telebrands did not 

object to the R&R’s indefiniteness determination, we 

review the district court’s determination on indefiniteness 

for plain error. Douglass, 79 F.3d at 1430.

Telebrands attempts to circumvent this deferential 

standard of review by arguing that objecting to the R&R’s 

claim construction, or lack thereof, put the Magistrate 

Judge on notice that it was contesting the definiteness of 

“substantially filled.” We disagree. Nowhere in its objections to the R&R does Telebrands mention the word 

“indefinite,” J.A. 1986–88, and “substantially filled” is not 

even among the terms flagged by Telebrands—“attached,” 

“connecting force,” “elastic fastener,” and the “shaking” 

limitation—as requiring construction. Id. We fail to see 

how seeking the construction of different, albeit related, 

claim terms would put the district court on notice of 

Telebrands’ objection to the R&R’s conclusion that “substantially filled” was not indefinite. 

Turning to the merits, Telebrands argues on appeal 

that the ’066 patent creates a subjective standard for 

determining whether a container is “substantially filled” 

because the specification makes frequent references to 

detaching the containers when they reach a “desired size.” 

Appellant Br. 13–14. The specification, however, does not

define or equate “substantially filled” with “desired size.” 

And the claims themselves teach that shaking causes the 

containers to detach from the hollow tubes when they are 

“substantially filled” with water, ’066 patent col. 6 ll. 46–

51, meaning that shaking will not detach the containers if 

they are not “substantially filled.” To put a finer point on 

it, if the balloons detach after shaking, then they are 

“substantially filled.” The R&R cited a portion of this 

claim language to support its conclusion that the ’066 

patent provided “specific parameters” for determining 

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 20 Filed: 01/24/2017
TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION 21

when the containers are “substantially filled.” Magistrate 

Op., 2015 WL 11089479, at *5. 

Telebrands alleges that the R&R’s reliance on a portion of this claim language for determining when a container is “substantially filled” was based on a truncated 

and incorrect reading of the claim. The R&R says, “containers are substantially filled with water when the 

‘water overcomes the connecting force and causes the 

containers to detach from the hollow tubes.’” Id. (quoting 

’066 patent col. 6 ll. 48–52). According to Telebrands, 

shaking, not the water, overcomes the connecting force. 

Although shaking does contribute to the detachment, as 

discussed above, the claims specifically call for detachment by shaking when the container is “substantially 

filled” with water. Thus, we do not find this argument 

persuasive. 

In addition to the reasons set forth in the R&R, the 

level of ordinary skill in the art plays an important role in 

an indefiniteness analysis. Telebrands asserts that a

POSA has “a general knowledge about and experience 

with expandable containers, including without limitation 

balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in science or

engineering.” J.A. 835–36 ¶¶ 10–13. We find it difficult 

to believe that a person with an associate’s degree in a 

science or engineering discipline who had read the specification and relevant prosecution history would be unable 

to determine with reasonable certainty when a water 

balloon is “substantially filled.” 

For these reasons, the district court’s conclusion that 

Telebrands’ indefiniteness argument failed to raise a 

substantial question of validity does not suffer from a 

“clear or obvious” error, Ortiz, 806 F.3d at 825–26, requiring reversal under plain error review. Because we find no 

clear or obvious error, we need not address the other plain 

error factors articulated by the Fifth Circuit in Ortiz. 

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 21 Filed: 01/24/2017
22 TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION

B. Obviousness

On appeal, Telebrands advances several arguments 

relating to the combination of the Cooper, Saggio, and Lee 

references. Because Telebrands did not object to the 

factual findings and legal conclusions in the R&R relating 

to obviousness, we review the district court’s obviousness 

analysis for plain error.9 

A claim is unpatentable as obvious “if the differences 

between the claimed invention and the prior art are such 

that the claimed invention as a whole would have been 

obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed 

invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” 35 

U.S.C. § 103. The law is clear, however, that “a patent 

composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. 

Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Indeed, “it can be 

important to identify a reason that would have prompted 

a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine 

the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” 

Id. 

Telebrands argues that the district court erred because it found there was no motivation to combine the 

prior art references without first considering whether Lee 

was reasonably pertinent to the particular problem the 

inventor solved. More specifically, Telebrands alleges 

that Cooper, Saggio, and Lee each relate to the same 

problem addressed by the ’066 patent: “automatically 

sealing a balloon or multiple balloons at one time.” Appellant Br. 17–18. A prior art reference is analogous and 

 

9 Telebrands conceded that plain error review applies during oral argument. See Oral Arg. at 6:10–6:30, 

http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=20

16-1410.mp3. 

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 22 Filed: 01/24/2017
TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION 23

thus can be used in an obviousness combination if it “is 

from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem 

addressed” or “is reasonably pertinent to the particular 

problem with which the inventor is involved,” even if it is 

not within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Unwired 

Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1000–01 (Fed. 

Cir. 2016) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658–59 (Fed. 

Cir. 1992)). The particular problem confronting the 

inventor here was how to rapidly fill multiple containers

with fluid. This is far removed from the problems associated with an endoscopic balloon insertion device for 

treating obesity, and Telebrands has not demonstrated 

that Lee is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed 

in the ’066 patent. Therefore, under a plain error review, 

we cannot say that the district court committed a clear or 

obvious error when it found insufficient motivation to 

combine these disparate references. Absent a motivation 

to combine, Telebrands’ remaining obviousness arguments are unavailing. 

III. Irreparable Harm

Finally, Telebrands alleges that it was clear error for 

the Magistrate Judge to rely on evidence pre-dating the 

’066 patent’s issuance in support of its finding of irreparable harm. Citing GAF Building Materials Corp. v. Elk 

Corp. of Dallas, 90 F.3d 479 (Fed. Cir. 1996), Telebrands 

asserts that irreparable harm must be measured from the 

date the patent issues because that is the date on which 

the right to exclude others arises. The GAF case is inapposite, however, because it addresses the dismissal for 

lack of jurisdiction of an action for declaratory judgment 

of invalidity and noninfringement of a design patent that 

had not yet issued. Id. at 481–83. And Telebrands cites 

no case prohibiting reliance on evidence of irreparable 

harm pre-dating the patent’s issuance. 

Evidence of consumer confusion, harm to reputation, 

and loss of goodwill pre-dating the patent is, at the very 

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 23 Filed: 01/24/2017
24 TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION

least, circumstantial evidence demonstrating the possibility of identical harms once the patent issues. Neither 

party has suggested that the issuance of a patent would 

somehow mitigate or otherwise eliminate those harms. 

Similarly, the pre-issuance price erosion evidence may be

relevant to show what would happen if Balloon Bonanza 

was no longer on the market. For example, it might 

support an argument that, absent competition, Tinnus 

could raise its price back to the original price point, but 

would not be able to do so as long as competition from 

Balloon Bonanza remains. 

Nonetheless, the irreparable harm analysis does not 

depend solely on evidence pre-dating the patent. The 

record contains additional evidence of harm after the ’066 

patent’s issuance that is sufficient to support a finding of 

irreparable harm. For example, a review for Tinnus’s 

Bunch O Balloons product on Amazon—dated a few weeks 

after the patent issued—states that the customer liked 

the “off brand” Bunch O Balloons product better than the 

“name brand” Balloon Bonanza. J.A. 1436. This establishes persisting harm to Tinnus’s reputation and tarnishes its status as the innovator in this market. See 

Celsis In Vitro, Inc. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 664 F.3d 922, 930 

(Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Price erosion, loss of goodwill, damage 

to reputation, and loss of business opportunities are all 

valid grounds for finding irreparable harm.”). Although 

the post-issuance evidence is thinner, we are unable to 

find any clear error in the district court’s conclusion that 

Tinnus had demonstrated irreparable harm. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the district court did 

not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary 

injunction. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment.

AFFIRMED

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 24 Filed: 01/24/2017
TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION 25

COSTS

Costs to Appellees.

Case: 16-1410 Document: 74-2 Page: 25 Filed: 01/24/2017