Case Name: CHICO'S FAS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. Andrea CLAIR, Anastasios Koskinas, 1654754 Ontario, Inc., DBA Wink Intimates, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-09
Citations: 676 F. App'x 1006
Docket Number: 2016-1579; 2016-1581
Parties: CHICO’S FAS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. Andrea CLAIR, Anastasios Koskinas, 1654754 Ontario, Inc., DBA Wink Intimates, Defendants-Appellants
Judges: Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Hughes, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 676
Pages: 1006–1007

Head Matter:
CHICO’S FAS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. Andrea CLAIR, Anastasios Koskinas, 1654754 Ontario, Inc., DBA Wink Intimates, Defendants-Appellants
2016-1579
2016-1581
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
February 9, 2017
Brian R. Gilchrist, Esq., Ava K. Doppelt, Ryan Santurri, Attorney, Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, Milbrath & Gilchrist, P.A., Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant
Shyam Dixit, Attorney, Dixit Law Firm, Tampa, FL, for Defendants-Appellants
Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Hughes, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
Dyk, Circuit Judge.
It Is Ordered That:
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ("district court") is affirmed on the ground that the district court properly granted summary judgment that Beverly Johnson is an inventor of the design patent, U.S. Patent No. D622,478, and the utility patents, U.S. Patent No. 8,506,347 ("'347 patent") and U.S. Patent No. 8,182,-310 ("'310 patent"), that Anastasios Koski-nas is not an inventor of these patents, and that the district court properly found that Johnson did not abandon her ownership rights in the aforementioned patents and that Chico's had acquired these rights. We remand to the district court to correct inventorship as appropriate pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256.
We dismiss as moot the appeal from the district court's order determining that the '347 patent and claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-20 of the '310 patent are invalid as anticipated by the Natori Peony Contour prior art.
In light of this disposition, as Chico's cross appeal is conditional, we do not reach the issue of whether Clair engaged in inequitable conduct.
No costs.