Consent Judgment Narrowly Interpreted: Successor-In-Interest Cannot Sue

TEVA(R) Sandal

Thatcher v. Khol’s Department Stores (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Thatcher sued Kohls and Associated Footware for infringement of Thatcher’s TEVA(R) sandals that were protected by a patent and by trade dress.  The case settled, and the defendants agreed to stop making & selling the infringing sandals.  Thatcher then sold his interest to Deckers Outdoor Corporation who sued Kohl’s again alleging that the department store had begun once again to sell copy-cat sandals.  However, the district court dismissed the case, finding that Deckers lacked standing to enforce the 1997 consent judgment because the consent judgment did not extend Thatcher’s rights to successors-in-interest. Citing United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673 (1971). 

On appeal, the Federal Circuit applied the law of the regional circuit (7th circuit) to interpret the consent judgment.  "The Seventh Circuit views a consent decree or a consent judgment as a form of contract, and, as such, the rules of contract interpretation apply. . . . There is nothing expressly set out in the consent judgment between Thatcher and Kohl’s extending Thatcher’s rights to any third party, including any "successor-in-interest." This silence is the functional equivalent of the parties’ express intent to exclude language of assignment."

Judgment Affirmed.

Notes:

  • Judges: Michel, MAYER, & Linn
  • Cite: Mark Thatcher, et al. v. Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc., et al., 2005 WL 310875 (Fed. Cir. 2005).