Washington Court Found KPSI in Civil Contempt
The U.S. District Court ruled that KPSI and three individuals violated an injunction regarding patent infringement.
Updated on Oct. 7, 2026 in Financial Crime
Live Poll
Should courts strictly enforce intellectual property rulings against companies to maintain industry integrity?
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington found KPSI, along with James A. Klein, Serina Klein, and David "Mike" Tullis, in civil contempt for violating a court-ordered injunction. The ruling follows a March 2025 jury verdict that held the defendants liable for willfully inducing patent infringement against CEMCO.
Why it matters
The court determined there was clear and convincing evidence that the defendants failed to notify customers of the injunction and continued selling prohibited products. This ruling marks a significant escalation in the ongoing legal dispute over patent protections and corporate compliance.
A jury awarded CEMCO $3.7 million in damages during the March 2025 trial, and the court is now initiating proceedings to assess civil contempt damages. The court has also requested briefing to determine if James and Serina Klein will face criminal contempt charges.
The players
KPSI
This is a corporate entity that the court identified as having taken over the operations of S4S.
CEMCO
Based in the City of Industry, California, this organization is the manufacturer that initiated the legal action against the defendants.
James A. Klein
He is an individual defendant currently facing potential criminal contempt proceedings in the Western District of Washington.
Serina Klein
She is an individual defendant who, alongside James A. Klein, is subject to further court review for potential criminal contempt.
David Mike Tullis
He is one of the three individuals found in civil contempt by the court.
The details
The defendants were found to have continued prohibited sales of the Smoke-n-Fire Gasket product, which the court ruled was not colorably different from the previously enjoined FRG product. Furthermore, the court cited the failure of the defendants to properly notify affected customers regarding the injunction as a violation of the court mandate.
Timeline
A jury verdict found the defendants liable for patent infringement in March 2025.
The U.S. District Court found the defendants in civil contempt on October 7, 2026.
Legal Context
This contempt ruling follows the pattern set by the 2025 CEMCO patent infringement jury verdict by enforcing the original liability judgment. It highlights the increasingly rigorous oversight courts apply when defendants fail to adhere to injunctions regarding proprietary product sales.
The court's order for further proceedings directly impacts local business operations by setting a precedent for how patent injunctions are monitored and enforced. Residents and local business owners should be aware that the court remains actively involved in determining final damages and potential criminal consequences.
The takeaway
This case serves as a warning that violating court-ordered injunctions can lead to severe civil and criminal penalties beyond initial damages. Businesses should ensure full transparency with customers when product restrictions are legally mandated to avoid further litigation.
Further reading
Learn more about recent enforcement actions in the Financial Crime section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Walls and Ceilings Magazine.
Live Poll
Should courts strictly enforce intellectual property rulings against companies to maintain industry integrity?
