Short 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.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-01392, Top Glory Trading Group Inc. and DP Dream Pairs, Inc. challenged Cole Haan LLC's U.S. Patent 10,327,511, which pertains to shoe design. The parties subsequently executed a settlement agreement, provided as Exhibit 2002, thereby terminating the inter partes review. The exhibit consists solely of page headers identifying the case and does not contain substantive argumentation, claim constructions, or prior‑art references, serving only to document the parties' resolution of the dispute.
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
Microsoft Corp.vsVirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 7,519,814. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the lack of an institution decision and the settlement agreement. The Board is asked to grant the termination and keep the agreement confidential.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al.vsSmart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Smart Speaker’s ’721 smart‑home patent, asserting that all asserted claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
Apple Inc.vsWeCrevention, Inc.
Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of WeCrevention’s DRAM patent (U.S. 12,154,652), seeking to invalidate claims 1‑6 on anticipation and obviousness grounds using multiple prior‑art references.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd.vsBarco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned to invalidate claims of Barco N.V.'s '347 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The Board found that combinations of prior art references taught all limitations for key claims related to unified communications systems.
WHOOP, Inc.vsOmni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB affirmed the construction of “identify an object” and held that all 23 claims of WHOOP’s wearable health‑monitoring patent are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, rendering them unpatentable.
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.