Executive Summary
Exhibit 2002 is the settlement agreement in IPR2025-01392 between Top Glory Trading Group, DP Dream Pairs and Cole Haan, ending the challenge to U.S. Patent 10,327,511 covering footwear design.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. vs Cole Haan LLC et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al.vsWellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB held that claims 13–15 and 17–20 of U.S. Patent 8,307,286 are unpatentable after finding the petitioner’s prior‑art references anticipate or render the claims obvious. The decision resolves the consolidated IPRs and denies the patent owner’s motions.
3D Systems Corporation et al.vsIntrepid Automation, Inc.
3D Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑20 of Intrepid Automation’s ’301 patent covering multi‑projector DLP additive manufacturing. The petition relies on three grounds of anticipation and obviousness using prior art from Shkolnik, Sekine, and Greene.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al.vsZaxcom, Inc.
Rode Microphones filed an IPR petition challenging Zaxcom’s 9,336,307 patent. The petitioner contends that all 14 claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Google LLCvsSoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPR against SoundClear’s decade‑old echo‑cancellation patent. The petitioner contends the Board improperly created a time‑based bar and ignored the district‑court stays and merits of the petition.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple (as petitioner) seeks to invalidate Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable health‑monitoring patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer. The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR and cancel the claims.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.