Ng LLC v. Createdhair Designs, LLC, Createdhair, Inc.

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
NG LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
CREATEDHAIR DESIGNS, LLC, CREATEDHAIR,
INC.,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2024-1599
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 2:21-cv-08086-JAK-
RAO, Judge John A. Kronstadt.
______________________
Decided: September 16, 2025
______________________
JOSEPH KUO, Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Chi-
cago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented
by BRIAN MICHALEK, ELIZABETH A. THOMPSON.
LANCE G. JOHNSON, Johnson Legal PLLC, Fairfax, VA,
argued for defendants-appellees.
______________________
Before LOURIE, PROST, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1599 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 09/16/2025

-- 1 of 7 --

NG LLC v. CREATEDHAIR DESIGNS, LLC 2
STOLL, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant NG LLC appeals the decision of the
United States District Court for the Central District of Cal-
ifornia granting summary judgment of non-infringement
as to the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,945,477
and 10,881,159. NG challenges the district court’s
(1) claim construction for the term “the wig grip apparatus
terminates at the forward periphery,” and (2) application
of prosecution history estoppel to bar NG’s doctrine of
equivalents argument. For the reasons discussed below,
we affirm.
I
We begin with the construction of the claim term “the
wig grip apparatus terminates at the forward periphery,”
U.S. Patent No. 10,881,159 col. 4 ll. 41–42,1 which the dis-
trict court construed according to its plain and ordinary
meaning—i.e., that “the forward periphery of the mesh el-
ement is the most forward portion of the wig grip appa-
ratus.” J.A. 12.
We review claim construction based on intrinsic evi-
dence de novo and review factual findings about extrinsic
evidence for clear error. SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Amazon.com,
998 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citing Teva Pharms.
USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 331–32 (2015)).
“When the meaning or scope of a patent claim is disputed
by litigants, the judicial role is to construe the claim . . .
[by] look[ing] first to the intrinsic record of the patent doc-
ument, including ‘the words of the claims themselves, the
1 Claim 1 of the ’159 patent is illustrative for pur-
poses of this appeal, as the ’159 patent is a continuation of
the ’477 patent and the parties make no differentiating ar-
guments between the intrinsic records of the two patents.
This opinion thus cites to claim 1, the specification, and the
prosecution history of the ’159 patent.
Case: 24-1599 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 09/16/2025

-- 2 of 7 --

NG LLC v. CREATEDHAIR DESIGNS, LLC 3
remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and
extrinsic evidence.’” Nature Simulation Sys. Inc. v. Auto-
desk, Inc., 50 F.4th 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en banc)).
We start, as we normally do, with the claim language.
Sequoia Tech., LLC v. Dell, Inc., 66 F.4th 1317, 1323
(Fed. Cir. 2023). Claim 1 of the ’159 patent specifies that
the wig grip apparatus comprises a mesh element wherein
“the mesh element includes a forward periphery” and “the
wig grip apparatus terminates at the forward periphery.”
’159 patent col. 4 ll. 38–42. This language suggests that
the entire wig grip apparatus of claim 1 terminates at the
forward periphery of the mesh element because the wig
grip encompasses the mesh element, and the wig grip ter-
minates at the forward periphery of the mesh element. We
agree with the district court that the phrase “terminates at
the forward periphery” most reasonably means that the
forward periphery of the mesh element is the forward-most
element of the wig grip apparatus, and other parts of the
wig grip apparatus (including the two securement mem-
bers) cannot extend beyond it.
NG contends that construing the term to mean “the for-
ward periphery of the mesh element is the most forward
portion of the wig grip apparatus” reads a limitation into
the term. NG argues the term should instead be given its
plain and ordinary meaning, with “terminates at” being
understood to convey that the wig grip apparatus comes to
an end but still allows for the wig grip apparatus to end at
other points as well. And under this proposed construction,
other portions of the wig grip apparatus may extend be-
yond the forward periphery of the mesh portion. We are
not persuaded. The limitation “the wig grip apparatus ter-
minates at the forward periphery” would be meaningless if
the wig grip apparatus can also “terminate[] at” any other
Case: 24-1599 Document: 38 Page: 3 Filed: 09/16/2025

-- 3 of 7 --

NG LLC v. CREATEDHAIR DESIGNS, LLC 4
point along its border.2 See Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
441 F.3d 945, 951 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[C]laim language
should not [be] treated as meaningless.”).
We next turn to the specification, which discusses the
position of the mesh element’s forward periphery in rela-
tion to the two securement members, stating: “[T]he se-
curement members 108 and 114 may each include a
forward edge 126 and . . . [t]he mesh element 120 may in-
clude a frontal segment 130 having a forward periph-
ery 132, and the forward periphery 132 may preferably be
in alignment with the forward edges 126.” ’159 patent
col. 2 l. 63–col. 3 l. 1. The district court’s construction does
not preclude this preferred embodiment because the mesh
element is still the most forward portion of the wig grip ap-
paratus even if other elements terminate at the same point.
And NG does not point to any language in the specification
that explicitly precludes the district court’s construction.
The prosecution history also supports this construc-
tion. The relevant limitation was not part of the original
claims in the application, which were rejected on a number
of grounds. After the initial rejection, during an interview
with the examiner, the applicant addressed “the extension
of the middle mesh section of the instant invention to the
forward edge of the wig grip apparatus as a distinguishing
feature” from the prior art. J.A. 187. The applicant then
submitted claim amendments, adding the language that
“the wig grip apparatus lacks non-transparency beyond the
forward periphery.” J.A. 174. After this proposed amend-
ment, another interview was conducted in which the exam-
iner “suggested changing the language of ‘the wig grip
2 At oral argument, NG could not persuasively ex-
plain why its claim construction did not render the limita-
tion meaningless. See Oral Arg. at 19:49–21:20,
https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=24
-1599_08042025.mp3.
Case: 24-1599 Document: 38 Page: 4 Filed: 09/16/2025

-- 4 of 7 --

NG LLC v. CREATEDHAIR DESIGNS, LLC 5
apparatus lacks non-transparency beyond the forward pe-
riphery’ since it was unclear.” J.A. 171. The applicant
“agreed to change the limitation to state ‘the wig grip ap-
paratus terminates at the forward periphery’ to overcome
the [§] 112 rejection and to overcome the prior art of record
and put the application in condition for allowance.” Id.
This exchange during prosecution appears to support the
district court’s construction, and at the very least, NG does
not point to anything in the prosecution history that pre-
cludes the construction.
We thus agree with the district court’s construction
that the claim term “the wig grip apparatus terminates at
the forward periphery” means “the forward periphery of
the mesh element is the most forward portion of the wig
grip apparatus.”
II
We now turn to NG’s challenge to the district court’s
summary judgment of non-infringement. Under the dis-
trict court’s claim construction, adopted above, NG con-
ceded there is no literal infringement. NG contends,
however, that the district court erred in applying prosecu-
tion history estoppel to NG’s doctrine of equivalents argu-
ment.
We apply the regional circuit’s standard of review when
reviewing a grant of summary judgment. Pharma Tech
Sols., Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc., 942 F.3d 1372, 1379–80
(Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). “The Ninth Circuit
reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de
novo.” Id. at 1380 (citing Forester v. Chertoff, 500 F.3d 920,
923 (9th Cir. 2007)). “Whether prosecution history estop-
pel applies, and thus whether the doctrine of equivalents is
available for a particular claim limitation, is a question of
law reviewed de novo.” Spectrum Pharms., Inc. v. Sandoz
Inc., 802 F.3d 1326, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Case: 24-1599 Document: 38 Page: 5 Filed: 09/16/2025

-- 5 of 7 --

NG LLC v. CREATEDHAIR DESIGNS, LLC 6
As discussed above, the narrowing limitation “the wig
grip apparatus terminates at the forward periphery” was
added during prosecution to overcome the examiner’s rejec-
tion of the claims either as anticipated by Walsh3 or as ob-
vious in view of Becker4 and other secondary references. “A
patentee’s decision to narrow his claims through amend-
ment may be presumed to be a general disclaimer of the
territory between the original claim and the amended
claim.” Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki
Co., 535 U.S. 722, 740 (2002). NG contends, however, that
it can rebut the presumption that estoppel applies here be-
cause the reason for its amendment to the claims was no
more than “tangential[ly] relat[ed]” to the equivalent it is
attempting to capture in this case. Appellant’s Br. 41
(quoting Festo, 535 U.S. at 740–41). We are not persuaded.
Here, after the initial rejection, the applicant argued to
the examiner that “the extension of the middle mesh sec-
tion of the instant invention to the forward edge of the wig
grip apparatus [i]s a distinguishing feature” from Walsh
and Becker. J.A. 187. This statement alone undermines
NG’s contention that a skilled artisan could objectively
read the amendment to be only tangentially related to the
doctrine of equivalents argument it makes trying to recap-
ture wig grips where the “middle mesh section” is not ex-
tended “to the forward edge of the wig grip.” See id.; see
also Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.,
344 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[T]he inquiry into
whether a patentee can rebut the Festo presumption under
the ‘tangential’ criterion focuses on the patentee’s objec-
tively apparent reason for the narrowing amendment. . . .
[T]hat reason should be discernible from the prosecution
history record, if the public notice function of a patent and
its prosecution history is to have significance.”).
3 U.S. Patent No. 5,265,280.
4 U.S. Patent No. 5,806,535.
Case: 24-1599 Document: 38 Page: 6 Filed: 09/16/2025

-- 6 of 7 --

NG LLC v. CREATEDHAIR DESIGNS, LLC 7
NG nonetheless argues that the amendment was only
tangential to the location of the mesh section because the
amendment was added to clarify that there are no opaque,
visible structures in front of the mesh element. But the
applicant initially amended its claims by adding the limi-
tation “the wig grip apparatus lacks non-transparency be-
yond the forward periphery.” J.A. 174. The examiner
instead “suggested changing the language of ‘the wig grip
apparatus lacks non-transparency beyond the forward pe-
riphery’ since it was unclear as to what ‘lacks non-trans-
parency’ is and it was also unclear as to what was
considered ‘beyond the forward periphery.’” J.A. 171. The
applicant then “agreed to change the limitation to state ‘the
wig grip apparatus terminates at the forward periphery’ to
overcome the [§] 112 rejection and to overcome the prior art
of record.” Id.
Based on this record, we agree with the district court’s
application of prosecution history estoppel to NG’s doctrine
of equivalents argument and thus see no error in the
court’s decision to grant summary judgment of non-in-
fringement to Defendants-Appellees CreatedHair Designs,
LLC and CreatedHair, Inc.
III
We have considered NG’s remaining arguments and
find them unpersuasive. Because (1) we adopt the district
court’s claim construction of “the wig grip apparatus termi-
nates at the forward periphery,” (2) NG concedes that there
is no literal infringement under this construction, and
(3) we see no error in the district court’s application of pros-
ecution history estoppel to NG’s doctrine of equivalents ar-
gument, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary
judgment of non-infringement as to the asserted claims of
the ’159 and ’477 patents.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-1599 Document: 38 Page: 7 Filed: 09/16/2025

-- 7 of 7 --