Focus Products Group International, LLC, Zahner Design Group, Ltd., Hookless Systems… v. Kartri Sales Co., Inc., Marquis Mills, International, Inc.

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
FOCUS PRODUCTS GROUP INTERNATIONAL,
LLC, ZAHNER DESIGN GROUP, LTD., HOOKLESS
SYSTEMS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., SURE FIT
HOME PRODUCTS, LLC, SURE FIT HOME DECOR
HOLDINGS CORP., SF HOME DECOR, LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellees
v.
KARTRI SALES CO., INC., MARQUIS MILLS,
INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants
______________________
2023-1446, 2023-1450, 2023-2148, 2023-2149
______________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York in No. 1:15-cv-10154-PAE,
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.
______________________
SUA SPONTE
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and CHEN, Cir-
cuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Case: 23-1446 Document: 93 Page: 1 Filed: 05/06/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

FOCUS PRODUCTS GROUP INTERNATIONAL , LLC v.
KARTRI SALES CO., INC.
2
Kartri Sales Co., Inc. (Kartri) and Marquis Mills Inter-
national, Inc. (Marquis, collectively, Appellants) filed non-
compliant briefs that divided the issues on appeal and at-
tempted to incorporate by reference each other’s briefs. See
ECF No. 25 at 30 (Kartri); ECF No. 26 at 26, 43 (Marquis).
Kartri’s brief focused on the trademark and trade dress is-
sues, while Marquis’s brief concentrated on the patent
claim construction and infringement issues. Appellees ob-
jected to Appellants’ briefs as effectively doubling Appel-
lants’ word count and argued it would be inequitable for
Appellees to have half the words to address the same is-
sues. ECF No. 33 at 2.
We struck the non-compliant briefs and ordered Appel-
lants to file corrected opening briefs. ECF No. 43 at 2. We
explained “incorporation cannot be used to exceed word
count” and “[t]he incorporated material counts against the
litigants’ word count in exactly the same manner as if it
had been expressly included in the brief.” Id. (quoting Mi-
crosoft Corp. v. DataTern, Inc., 755 F.3d 899, 910 (Fed. Cir.
2014)); see also Promptu Sys. Corp. v. Comcast Cable
Commc’ns, LLC, 92 F.4th 1384, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2024); Med-
tronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Scis. Ltd., 86 F.4th 902, 906
(Fed. Cir. 2023). We also explained the non-compliant
briefs contravened our rule limiting opening briefs to
14,000 words. ECF No. 43 at 2 (citing Fed. Cir. R. 32(b)(1)).
Despite our rule and order, Appellants re-filed briefs which
again continued to divide the issues for treatment. See
ECF No. 46 (Kartri); ECF No. 48 (Marquis). For instance,
Marquis spent over twenty pages addressing patent in-
fringement covering three patents and multiple disputed
claim terms, while Kartri spent less than one page on all
patent issues. Compare ECF No. 48 at 35–56, with ECF
No. 46 at 40–41.
We understand Kartri and Marquis, even without ex-
pressly saying so, are each continuing to seek the benefit of
any winning argument that was adequately presented only
by the other Appellant. If our understanding is correct, the
Case: 23-1446 Document: 93 Page: 2 Filed: 05/06/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

FOCUS PRODUCTS GROUP INTERNATIONAL , LLC v.
KARTRI SALES CO., INC.
3
Appellants are ordered to show cause why their briefing
choices do not amount to another violation of our word
count limit for opening briefs, as well as our prior order en-
forcing the word limit.
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) Counsel for Appellants are to independently show
cause why they should not be sanctioned for violating our
court rule (Fed. Cir. R. 32(b)(1)) and our prior order (ECF
No. 43). Appellants are also directed to explain what an
appropriate sanction would be.
(2) By May 15, 2025, Appellants are directed to file sep-
arate briefs not to exceed 10 pages each, double spaced.
May 6, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 23-1446 Document: 93 Page: 3 Filed: 05/06/2025

-- 3 of 3 --