PTAB

IPR2025-00346

KlIPSTA Pty Ltd v. Albanese Lindsay

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Holding a Hat
  • Brief Description: The ’047 patent discloses a hat holder system comprising first and second straps joined at one end and featuring ferromagnetic members at their opposite, free ends. The magnetic attraction between these members allows the straps to clamp onto and securely hold a hat, while a hook coupled to one of the straps enables the system to be attached to a bag or other accessory.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §102 by KR '458

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: KR '458 (Korean Patent Publication 101457458 B).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that KR '458 discloses every element of independent claims 1 and 16. KR '458 describes a hat holder (hat holder 110) formed from a single folded strap, which Petitioner mapped to the claimed first and second straps joined at one end. The reference discloses that its snap connectors may alternatively be fixed magnets, which Petitioner asserted meets the limitation of ferromagnetic members. KR '458 also explicitly shows the device holding a hat between the straps and includes a hook (hook 200) coupled to the strap, thereby teaching all limitations of claim 1. As claim 16 recites similar subject matter without the hook, Petitioner contended it is also anticipated.

Ground 2: Anticipation of Claims 1 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §102 by JP '655

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: JP '655 (Japanese Patent Publication 2011087655).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that JP '655, which describes a hanger for holding an object such as a hat, anticipates claims 1 and 16. Petitioner mapped the reference’s clamping parts (31 and 32) to the claimed first and second straps. JP '655 explicitly states that the means for securing the clamping parts is not limited to clips and may include magnetic attachment, which Petitioner argued discloses the claimed ferromagnetic members. The reference further shows a holding body (34) coupled to a clamping part, which corresponds to the claimed hook, and illustrates the device holding a hat.

Ground 3: Claims 1 and 16 are Anticipated by, or Obvious over, DE '216

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: DE '216 (German Patent Publication 29717216). As a secondary basis for obviousness, Petitioner cited Woloshen (Patent 5,890,638), Griffith (Patent 9,289,052), and Carter (Patent 6,863,196).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued DE '216, a magnetic holder for garments like napkins, anticipates the claims. It discloses a holder (12) and counter-holder (14) made of plastic or metal strips, which Petitioner mapped to the claimed straps. The reference teaches magnets (11, 13) at the ends of the strips and a retaining ring (19) that functions as a hook. Petitioner contended this structure is inherently capable of retaining a hat, thus anticipating the claims.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Alternatively, Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to use the DE '216 device for holding a hat. References like Woloshen and Griffith demonstrate the known problem of conveniently carrying a hat and the common use of clips for this purpose. A POSITA would combine the known solution (hat clips) with the magnetic strap mechanism of DE '216 to achieve the predictable result of a magnetic hat holder.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because DE '216 already provides a functional magnetic clip for light items (napkins), and applying it to another light item (a hat) would involve no technical hurdles.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional challenges. These included obviousness grounds for claim 16 over Davison (Patent 3,529,328), KR '278, KR '332, Liao (Application # 2014/0367986), and Lloyd (Application # 2013/0133160), each of which discloses a magnetic clip for other articles of clothing. Further grounds addressed dependent claims 2-15, 17, and 18 based on combinations of KR '458 or JP '655 with secondary references like Hsu (Application # 2009/0106944), Hornik (Patent 2,615,227), Glasmire (Patent 6,836,899), and Smith-Reynolds (Patent 9,408,992) to teach features such as gripping members, flexible hooks, and sewn-in magnets.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "the second strap joins to the first strap": Petitioner argued this phrase should be construed broadly to encompass embodiments where the two straps are formed from a single piece of material that is folded over, not just two separate pieces joined together. This construction is based on the patent’s specification and was allegedly confirmed by the Patent Owner in a separate proceeding.
  • "a hook coupled to the first strap": Petitioner contended this term should not be limited to a conventional, rigid hook. Based on figures and descriptions in the ’047 patent, Petitioner argued the term is used broadly to refer to any structure that attaches the holder to another object, including flexible strap-style loops with snap closures.
  • "configured to retain a portion of the hat therebetween": Petitioner proposed this limitation requires that the magnetic force between the ferromagnetic members is sufficient to substantially hold a hat, as described in the patent’s "in use" section.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’047 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103.