Short Summary
Top Glory and DP Dream have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cole Haan's 10,443,163 patent covering knitted shoe uppers, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review (IPR2025-01393), Top Glory Trading Group Inc. and DP Dream Pairs Inc. challenge U.S. Patent No. 10,443,163, owned by Cole Haan LLC. The petition asserts that the patent’s 28 claims, which describe a shoe with a seamless knitted upper featuring a wingtip pattern and varied knit structures, are obvious in view of the Dua patent and its incorporated references (U.S. Patents 6,931,762 and 6,910,288), as well as design publications such as Flusser, Litke, Podhajny, and Blakely. The challengers contend that the ornamental features lack patentable weight and that the combination of prior art would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. They request the PTAB to institute the trial and find all claims unpatentable under §103.
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
United Services Automobile AssociationvsAuto Telematics Ltd.
USAA successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Auto Telematics Ltd.'s patent covering driver behavior monitoring and accident detection technology. The Board found the claims were reasonably likely to be obvious over combinations of prior art references, moving the case toward trial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,470,595, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art Wi‑Fi standards such as Josiam, Seok, Chen and Wu. The petition relies on the bandwidth field in HE‑SIG‑A and the common field in HE‑SIG‑B to show lack of novelty.
United Therapeutics CorporationvsActelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. et al.
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-01139, preventing United Therapeutics Corporation from challenging Actelion's patent 8268847.
ResMed Corp.vsCleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed Corp. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Cleveland Medical Devices regarding a patent covering sleep disorder treatment/CPAP systems. The Board found that ResMed demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Grounds 1-3, which centered on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Hisense USA Corp. et al.vsLight Guide Innovations LLC
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 22 claims of Light Guide Innovations' U.S. Patent 8,408,778 covering LED backlighting technology. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of prior art references such as Asada, Kinoshita, Ashdown, Cho and Dejima. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
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.