(Reuters) – Victoria’s Secret’s parent company L Brands Inc and two subsidiaries escaped patent claims brought by online lingerie seller Andra Group LP at the Federal Circuit on Tuesday, which found the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas was an improper venue for the case.
U.S. Circuit Judge Todd Hughes wrote for a three-judge panel that, among other things, Columbus, Ohio-based L Brands lacked sufficient control over Victoria’s Secret stores in East Texas to justify hearing the case there.
Andra and its attorney Casey Griffith of Griffith Barbee declined to comment on the ruling.
Victoria’s Secret and its attorney Rich Miller of Ballard Spahr didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Andra, a Dallas-based company that runs the online lingerie store HerRoom, sued VS in 2019, alleging it infringed a patent related to a “virtual showroom” for displaying thumbnails on a website. In the complaint, Andra named as defendants L Brands and Victoria’s Secret Stores, which operates physical VS stores, Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Management, which manages its website and mobile app, and Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management, which creates VS-branded lingerie and beauty products.
U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant in Sherman, Texas, dismissed all of the defendants except Victoria’s Secret Stores for improper venue, adopting a magistrate judge’s report. Andra later dropped the case against Victoria’s Secret Stores without prejudice.
Andra argued on appeal that the East Texas court was the proper venue for all of the defendants because Stores’ employees are agents of the other VS-related entities, and therefore its stores in East Texas are their places of business. Hughes, joined by Circuit Judges Jimmie Reyna and Haldane Mayer, disagreed.
Hughes rejected Andra’s argument that the Texas court had jurisdiction over L Brands because it controlled the stores’ operations. Andra said L Brands controls the hiring and firing of store employees and requires them to follow its code of conduct, but a store manager’s testimony that she makes hiring and firing decisions independently and holds employees accountable for following the code of conduct “directly contradicted” Andra’s argument, Hughes said.
“None of the facts alleged by Andra are sufficient to prove that Stores employees are agents of LBI, because LBI does not have the right to direct or control Stores employees, an essential element of an agency relationship,” Hughes said.
Andra’s argument that VS Direct controls stores by “dictating their handling of returns of merchandise purchased on the Victoria’s Secret website” also failed. While accepting returns of website sales “is a service that may benefit Direct, Andra has not shown that Direct controls this process,” Hughes said.
Hughes also rejected Andra’s venue argument for VS Stores Brand Management, which Andra said “closely controls the distribution and sales of its products exclusively available through store locations and the website,” because this didn’t give it the right to direct or control store employees.
The case is Andra Group LP v. Victoria’s Secret Stores LLC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 20-2009.
For Andra: Casey Griffith and Maeghan Whitehead of Griffith Barbee.
For VS: Rich Miller of Ballard Spahr.
