Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc.

No. 22-2324-JAR (D. Kan. Mar. 9, 2026) · United States District Court for the District of Kansas · March 9, 2026 · No. 22-2324-JAR

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas grants Overstock.com, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment in Lexos Media IP, LLC’s patent infringement action involving cursor-image modification technologies. The court holds that Lexos’s enforcement of the ’241 Patent is barred by collateral estoppel based on a prior decision finding that patent invalid for failure to properly claim priority. The court also grants summary judgment on the ’102 and ’449 Patent claims based on the asserted infringement opinions’ failure to apply the court’s claim construction, and finds the Daubert motion regarding damages testimony moot.

Holdings

  1. Defensive collateral estoppel applied because the validity and priority issue had been previously and finally adjudicated, involved the same party, and Lexos had a full and fair opportunity to litigate it. Lexos was therefore precluded from relitigating whether the '241 patent claimed priority over the '102 patent.
  2. Overstock was entitled to summary judgment on the '102 and '449 patent infringement claims because Lexos did not identify admissible evidence from which a reasonable jury could find infringement under the court's claim construction.
  3. Lexos's theory was incompatible with the court's construction of 'cursor image' because a single movable image must both have a position controlled through a user interface and indicate where user input can be received; separate images could not satisfy different portions of that construction.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether collateral estoppel barred Lexos from relitigating the validity of the '241 patent based on its failure to claim priority to the '102 patent.
  2. Whether Overstock was entitled to summary judgment of noninfringement of the '102 and '449 patents because Lexos lacked admissible evidence establishing infringement under the court's claim construction.
  3. Whether Lexos's infringement theory was incompatible with the court's construction of 'cursor image.'

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (29)

  • City of Harriman v. Bell, 590 F.3d 1176, 1181 (10th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Bones v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 366 F.3d 869, 875 (10th Cir. 2004)(followed)
  • Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 256 (1986)(followed)
  • Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986)(followed)
  • Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326, 329, 331 (1979)(distinguished)
  • Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013)(followed)
  • Stan Lee Media, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 774 F.3d 1292, 1297-99 (10th Cir. 2014)(followed)
  • Murdock v. Ute Indian Tribe of Uintah & Ouray Rsrv., 975 F.2d 683, 687 (10th Cir. 1992)(followed)
  • Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313, 332-33, 349-50 (1971)(followed)
  • Droplets, Inc. v. E*TRADE Bank, 887 F.3d 1315, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 29.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…