Top Glory Trading Group Inc v. Cole Haan LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-01392
• Patent #: 10,327,511
• Filed: September 3, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Top Glory Trading Group Inc. and DP Dream Pairs, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Cole Haan LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-23

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Shoe Comprising a Knitted Upper
• Brief Description: The ’511 patent discloses footwear with a unitary, one-piece knit upper formed through a seamless knitting process. The invention focuses on uppers that include distinct areas with different knit structures and an integrated wingtip pattern, often formed at the boundary between these different knit areas.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Dua in view of ’762/’288 - Claims 1-23 are obvious over Dua, optionally in further view of the ’762 and ’288 patents it incorporates by reference.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Dua (Application # 2010/0154256), Patent 6,931,762 (’762 patent), and Patent 6,910,288 (’288 patent).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Dua, which incorporates the ’762 and ’288 patents by reference, teaches all fundamental elements of the challenged claims. Dua discloses a "dress shoe" with a unitary, one-piece knit upper manufactured through a flat knitting process. It explicitly teaches creating different zones with varied knit structures ("more or less apertured configuration"), densities, and yarn types to achieve desired structural or aesthetic properties. The combination discloses seamlessly joining these different regions and using various yarns, including elastane (spandex) and thermoplastic (hot melt) yarns.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that since Dua expressly incorporates the ’762 and ’288 patents, their disclosures are part of Dua itself. Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine them to apply the known benefits of creating complex patterns and using varied yarn types (taught in ’762 and ’288) to Dua’s knitted dress shoe upper, a combination expressly contemplated by Dua for improving footwear attributes.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as combining these teachings involves applying conventional knitting techniques to create known structures for their predictable benefits, such as durability, flexibility, and aesthetics.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Dua in view of Flusser - Claims 1-20 are obvious over Dua (incorporating ’762/’288) in view of Flusser.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Dua (Application # 2010/0154256) and Flusser (Alan J. Flusser, Clothes and the Man, 1985).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the teachings of Dua by adding Flusser to disclose the ornamental "wingtip pattern" and "broguing" limitations. Petitioner asserted that Dua teaches the foundational knitted dress shoe upper with varied knit regions. Flusser, a well-known menswear guide, explicitly discloses the "wing-tip brogue" as one of approximately seven standard, common styles for men's dress shoes, describing its characteristic patterns and decorative perforations (broguing).
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, tasked with designing a knitted dress shoe as taught by Dua, would be motivated to incorporate one of the finite number of well-known, aesthetically pleasing dress shoe styles described in Flusser. Applying the classic wingtip pattern to Dua's modern knit upper was presented as an obvious design choice to enhance its market appeal by combining a traditional look with new technology.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would be predictable, as it involves applying a known decorative pattern to a known textile upper. The knitting techniques disclosed in Dua are capable of creating complex patterns, including the lines of holes that constitute broguing, making the implementation straightforward.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Dua in view of Podhajny - Claims 7-12 and 14 are obvious over Dua in view of Podhajny.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Dua (Application # 2010/0154256) and Podhajny (Application # 2014/0237856).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically targets claims related to yarn composition, including covered spandex yarn, hot melt yarn, and polyester yarn, as well as their relative percentages and deniers. Petitioner argued that Podhajny teaches a unitary knit upper for a dress shoe made with specific yarn combinations to achieve desired properties. This includes a first yarn of polyester-covered spandex and a third yarn incorporating a fusible (hot melt) polymer material, explicitly disclosing denier values for these yarns.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Podhajny's yarn teachings with Dua’s knitted upper to improve its performance characteristics. For instance, using Podhajny's covered spandex yarn would provide stretch and durability to Dua’s upper, while incorporating the hot melt yarn would allow for targeted stiffening or reinforcement in specific areas. Dua already contemplates using these types of yarns, making the combination a logical and predictable optimization.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in knitting an upper with the yarns taught by Podhajny using the methods taught by Dua, as both references relate to conventional knitting technology for footwear and seek to achieve similar functional goals.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including using Litke (Patent 7,949,570) as an alternative to Flusser for teaching a wingtip pattern on footwear, and using Blakely (Application # 2014/0109286) to teach the specific yarn denier ranges recited in claim 13.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Ornamental/Aesthetic Limitations: Petitioner’s central claim construction argument was that features relating to purely ornamental design should not be given patentable weight. Specifically, Petitioner identified the "wingtip pattern," "lines of broguing," and the specific arrangement of different knit structures as aesthetic choices rather than functional requirements. Petitioner argued these limitations merely recite a pattern's shape and location without providing any structural or mechanical function, and thus cannot patentably distinguish the claims from prior art that teaches the underlying functional elements.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §325(d) Arguments: Petitioner argued against discretionary denial because the primary prior art references (Dua, Flusser, Litke, Podhajny, Blakely) were never considered during prosecution. Petitioner asserted that the Examiner erred by giving patentable weight to purely ornamental features and by failing to reject claims over art teaching patterned, seamlessly knitted uppers.
• §314(a) Fintiv Arguments: Petitioner contended that denial under Fintiv is unwarranted. The petition was filed early in the co-pending district court case, where no trial date had been set. Petitioners also stipulated that, upon institution, they would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the district court, thereby promoting efficiency and avoiding duplicative efforts.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-23 of the ’511 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.