JACKI EASLICK, LLC v. CJ EMERALD [OPINION]

JACKI EASLICK, LLC v. CJ EMERALD [OPINION] Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized. Review the linked PDF before publication. The extracted conclusion below is included for audit. AFFIRMED conclusion on this matter) the 90-degree orientation is functional. Appellee's Br. 18. Jacki Easlick disagrees. Reply Br. 3. But the parties also dispute whether AccEncyc has preserved that argument. Reply Br. 3; Appellee's Br. 19. The resolution of this issue does not affect our anal- ysis. Thus, we do not reach it. [Page 8] 8 JACKI EASLICK, LLC v. CJ EMERALD thinking that any of the [AccEncyc] designs were the same as [Jacki Easlick's] patented design." Richardson v. Stan- ley Works, Inc., 597 F.3d 1288, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Jacki Easlick contends that "the district court in this case was led astray" by AccEncyc's "exclusive[]" focus on the Tote Hanger's "'corkscrew' twist" and "different shapes on the end of the hooks in the two products, ignoring alto- gether the 'overall impression' of the two products." Appel- lants' Br. 18–19. But the district court explicitly stated that it was non-precedential non-precedential