PTAB

IPR2025-01393

Top Glory Trading Group Inc v. Cole Haan LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Seamlessly Knitted Footwear with Wingtip Patterns
  • Brief Description: The ’163 patent is directed to shoes with unitary, one-piece seamless knit uppers. The uppers feature distinct areas with different knit structures and a wingtip pattern, particularly at the boundary between these different structures.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-28 are obvious over Dua alone or in view of ’762/’288

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Dua (Application # 2010/0154256), the ’762 patent, and the ’288 patent.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Dua, which incorporates the ’762 and ’288 patents by reference, discloses all fundamental elements of the challenged claims. Dua teaches a method of manufacturing a dress shoe with a unitary, one-piece knitted upper formed through a single knitting process. It explicitly describes varying knit types, densities, and yarn types in different regions of the upper to achieve desired structural or aesthetic attributes, such as forming apertured and less-apertured areas. This combination was asserted to teach the claimed seamless construction across different foot regions (heel, midfoot, toe) and the use of different knit structures in adjacent areas.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted that Dua expressly incorporates the ’762 and ’288 patents, making their disclosures part of Dua itself. Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine them because they are analogous art from the same assignee and inventor, addressing the same field of knitted footwear. A POSITA would apply the teachings of varied knit structures and fusible yarns from ’762/’288 to Dua's knitted upper to achieve known benefits like improved structural properties, abrasion resistance, and reduced waste.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved applying known knitting techniques to create predictable variations in a shoe upper, as expressly contemplated by Dua.

Ground 2: Claims 1-28 are obvious over Dua in view of Flusser

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Dua (Application # 2010/0154256) and Flusser (Alan J. Flusser, Clothes and the Man: The Principles of Fine Men’s Dress (1985)).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground relied on Dua for the base technology of a seamlessly knitted dress shoe upper with varied knit structures, as detailed in Ground 1. Flusser, a well-known reference on men's fashion, was introduced to teach the specific ornamental "wingtip pattern" and associated "broguing" (decorative perforations) recited in the claims. Petitioner argued Flusser establishes the wingtip as one of a finite number of common, standard designs for men's dress shoes, and discloses the pattern’s characteristic shape, including its medial and lateral lines extending across the toe, ball, and metatarsal regions.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA, tasked with designing a knitted dress shoe as taught by Dua, would be motivated to incorporate a well-known, aesthetically pleasing pattern. Petitioner contended that applying one of the few standard dress shoe styles described in Flusser, such as the wingtip, to Dua's knitted upper would have been an obvious design choice to enhance its appearance and marketability as a dress shoe.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success would be predictable, as it merely involved applying a known decorative pattern to a known type of textile upper using the conventional knitting techniques for creating patterns and apertures already disclosed in Dua.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations of Dua with Litke (Patent 7,949,570) as an alternative to Flusser for teaching wingtip patterns. Further grounds for claims 5-9 relied on Podhajny (Application # 2014/0237856) for specific yarn teachings, and grounds for claim 10 relied on Blakely (Application # 2014/0109286) for specific yarn denier ranges.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that claim limitations reciting ornamental and aesthetic features are not entitled to patentable weight.
  • Specifically, limitations describing the "wingtip pattern," "broguing," and the specific "shape and arrangement" of different knit structures were asserted to be purely ornamental. Petitioner contended these features do not provide any structural or functional advantage and merely recite a known, common aesthetic design for dress shoes. Citing PTAB precedent, Petitioner argued that such ornamental features cannot distinguish the claims from the prior art.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §325(d) Arguments: Petitioner argued against denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), stating that the primary prior art references (Dua, Flusser, Litke, Podhajny, Blakely) were never considered during the prosecution of the ’163 patent. It was asserted that the examiner erred by allowing the claims based on ornamental features, and the new art and arguments presented are material to patentability.
  • §314(a) Arguments (Fintiv): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, noting that the parallel district court case (Cole Haan LLC v. Top Glory Trading Group Inc. et al.) was in its earliest stages with no trial date set. Petitioner stipulated that, upon institution, it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the district court case, mitigating concerns of duplicative efforts.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-28 of the ’163 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.