The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene in a long-running patent battle, refusing to hear an inventor’s attempt to overturn a $214,000 sanctions order imposed for bad-faith litigation and upheld by the Federal Circuit.

High Court Declines to Reopen Sanctions Fight

In a brief order list, the justices rejected a petition filed by Clifford A. Lowe and his company Spota LLC, who sought relief from sanctions ordered by an Ohio federal court in their patent infringement suit involving a type of marking tape.

The sanctions stem from litigation against ShieldMark Inc. and other companies accused of infringing a patent covering the tape technology.

A Case That Keeps Coming Back

Disputes arising from Lowe and Spota’s patent enforcement efforts have cycled through the Federal Circuit multiple times. In 2022, the appeals court revived their lawsuit after faulting the lower court’s claim construction, ruling that the flawed interpretation had underpinned a noninfringement finding and warranted a remand.

But the momentum shifted again in March, when the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion on remand that the patent was invalid as anticipated. At the same time, it upheld the $214,000 attorney-fee award, finding no clear error in the lower court’s determination that the plaintiffs had pursued the case in bad faith.

The appeals court reiterated that stance in September, declining to revisit the sanctions after having already approved them.

Bad Faith at the Center of the Ruling

The Federal Circuit said the district court’s bad-faith finding was supported by evidence, including the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose licensing transactions during discovery that materially affected the case. The court also cited misstatements in an amended complaint regarding who held rights to the asserted patent.

Those actions, the court said, justified shifting attorney fees to the plaintiffs.

Supreme Court Closes the Final Avenue

Earlier in 2025, the Supreme Court had already turned away a separate petition from Lowe and Spota challenging the Federal Circuit’s decision upholding the patent’s invalidity. The petition denied Monday focused instead on the sanctions order and the September appellate ruling.

Lowe and Spota argued that the Federal Circuit had acknowledged Spota’s standing to sue, making it improper to penalize the company for continuing to litigate.

“The decision of the district court to award sanctions based on ‘plaintiffs’ conduct in delaying the litigation’ was factually, as well as legally, erroneous,” the petition argued, questioning why the alleged mischaracterization should not be reconsidered on appeal.

The Supreme Court offered no explanation for its denial.

Parties and Counsel

Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.

The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 10,214,664.

Lowe and Spota are represented by Ray Weber of Renner Kenner Greive Bobak Taylor & Weber Co. LPA.
ShieldMark, Advanced Plastics Corp., and Crown Equipment Corp. are represented by James McCarthy III of Sand Sebolt & Wernow LPA.

With the Supreme Court’s refusal to step in, the sanctions order stands—marking the final chapter in a patent fight that ricocheted through the courts like tape snapping tight under strain.