`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`SKECHERS U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NIKE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. ______
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. D723,783 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 1
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING AND FEE AUTHORIZATION ................... 4
`
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) .............................................. 5
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF CHALLENGE .................................................................... 6
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ....................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Improper, Omnibus ’576 Application ........................................... 6
`
`Nike Delays Examination for More Than Two Years with Four
`Identical Continuation Applications .................................................. 11
`
`C. More Than Two Years After the ’576 Application, Nike Files a
`Fifth Continuation Seeking Priority to the ’576 Application ............. 13
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The Prior Art ...................................................................................... 16
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 17
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 17
`
`VII. THE ’783 PATENT’S EARLIEST PRIORITY DATE IS ITS
`MAY 31, 2014 FILING DATE .................................................................... 24
`
`A.
`
`The ’576 Application Fails to Disclose at Least Five Features of
`the Design Claimed in the ’783 Patent ............................................... 25
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Undisclosed Piston Shape and Surface .................................... 26
`
`Undisclosed Uniformity in Piston Coloring and Shading ....... 29
`
`Undisclosed Hash Mark Pattern .............................................. 30
`
`Undisclosed Front Perspective View Pistons and Piston
`Lengths ..................................................................................... 32
`
`5.
`
`Undisclosed Lateral View Piston and Piston Length .............. 33
`
`B.
`
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Not Clearly
`Recognize the Design Claimed in the ’783 Patent from the ’576
`Application ......................................................................................... 36
`
`1.
`
`By Claiming Only a “Sole Portion of a Shoe,” the ’783
`Patent Claims a Design Not Disclosed in the ’576
`Application ............................................................................... 36
`
`
`
`i
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 2
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`By Introducing New Broken and Solid Lines, the
`’783 Patent Claims a Design Not Disclosed in the
`’576 Application ...................................................................... 41
`
`Omission of the Front, Rear, Medial, and Top Views of
`the Claimed Design in the ’783 Patent Amounts to New
`Matter Not Disclosed in the ’576 Application ......................... 46
`
`VIII. THE SOLE CLAIM OF THE ’783 PATENT IS INVALID AS
`OBVIOUS OVER RCD 0015 ...................................................................... 49
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`RCD 0015 Is Prior Art to the ’783 Patent .......................................... 49
`
`RCD 0015 Renders the ’783 Patent Obvious ..................................... 50
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 52
`
`
`
`ii
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 3
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................... 25, 36
`
`Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`363 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................24
`
`Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.,
`543 F.3d 665 (Fed Cir. 2008) ...............................................................................18
`
`Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc.,
`796 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................18
`
`Ex parte Chu,
`Case No. 2001-0959, 2003 WL 22282257 (B.P.A.I. 2003) ............... 4, 46, 47, 48
`
`High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.,
`730 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................51
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`793 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................18
`
`In re Owens,
`710 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... passim
`
`In re Rubinfield,
`270 F.2d 391 (C.C.P.A. 1959) .............................................................................37
`
`Munchkin, Inc. v. Luv N’ Care, Ltd.,
`Case No. IPR2013-00072, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1580 (P.T.A.B. 2014),
`aff’d per curiam, 599 F. App’x 958 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................. passim
`
`Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.,
`597 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................18
`
`Sensio, Inc. v. Select Brands, Inc.,
`Case No. IPR2013-00500, 2015 WL 5440721 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2015) ...... 50, 51
`
`
`
`iii
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 4
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ..................................................................... 25, 50
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ....................................................................................................1, 26
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.152 .............................................................................................. 28, 48
`
`37 C.F.R. § 184(b) ...................................................................................................32
`
`37 C.F.R. § 184(b)(1) .............................................................................................2, 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..............................................................................................18
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103(a) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 5
`
`Other Authorities
`
`MPEP § 1503.02 .............................................................................................. passim
`
`MPEP § 1503.03 ......................................................................................................28
`
`MPEP § 1504.02 ......................................................................................................50
`
`MPEP § 1504.04 ............................................................................................... 26, 42
`
`MPEP § 1504.05 ......................................................................................................37
`
`MPEP § 211 ............................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`iv
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 5
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`MPEP § 211.05 ........................................................................................................25
`
`MPEP § 2127 ...........................................................................................................50
`
`MPEP § 507 ............................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`v
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 6
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Skechers 1001 ……… U.S. Patent No. D723,783 (“the ’783 Patent”)
`
`Skechers 10021 ……… File History, including the Supplemental Content drawings,
`for U.S. Patent Application No. 29/492,575
`(“the ’575 Application”), which ultimately issued as U.S.
`Patent No. D723,783
`
`Skechers 10032 ……… File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 29/414,576
`(“the ’576 Application”)
`
`Skechers 1004 ……… Supplemental Content for U.S. Patent Application
`No. 29/414,576, namely, Figures 1-70
`
`Skechers 1005 ……… Supplemental Content for U.S. Patent Application
`No. 29/414,576, namely, Figures 71-140
`
`Skechers 1006 ……… File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 29/429,338
`(“the ’338 Application”)
`
`Skechers 1007 ……… File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 29/443,440
`(“the ’440 Application”)
`
`Skechers 1008 ……… File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 29/465,636
`(“the ’636 Application”)
`
`
`1 For ease of reference, Skechers has added consecutive page numbers to the
`
`bottom of each page of exhibits that lack consecutive page numbering, such as
`
`Skechers 1002.
`
`2 Skechers has included as Skechers 1004 and Skechers 1005 high resolution color
`
`and grayscale photographic images, respectively, that were submitted as part of the
`
`’576 Application and are depicted throughout the Petition.
`
`v
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 7
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Skechers 1009 ……… File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 29/481,800
`(“the ’800 Application”)
`
`Skechers 1010 ……… Complaint, Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.,
`Case No. 3:16-cv-00007-PK (D. Or.)
`
`Skechers 1011 ……… Certified Registration and Extract from the Register for
`Registered Community Design No. 002000489-0015
`(“RCD 0015”)
`
`Skechers 1012 ……… Declaration of Robert John Anders in Support of Skechers
`U.S.A., Inc.’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. D723,783
`
`Skechers 1013 ……… U.S. Patent No. 9,295,304
`
`Skechers 1014 ……… U.S. Patent No. 5,425,184
`
`Skechers 1015 ……… U.S. Patent No. 6,948,264
`
`Skechers 1016 ……… Nike Unveils New Running Technologies and “Nature
`Amplified” Design Ethos, Nike News (July 16, 2013),
`http://news.nike.com/news/nike-unveils-new-running-
`technologies-and-nature-amplified-design-ethos
`
`Skechers 1017 ……… Munchkin, Inc. v. Luv N’ Care, Ltd.,
`Case No. IPR2013-00072 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2014)
`
`Skechers 1018 ……… Ex parte Chu, Case No. 2001-0959, 2003 WL 22282257
`(B.P.A.I. 2003)
`
`Skechers 1019 ……… Council Regulation 6/2002
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 8
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Skechers U.S.A., Inc. (“Skechers”) seeks inter partes review of
`
`the sole claim of U.S. Patent No. D723,783 (“the ’783 Patent”). The ’783 Patent is
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Registered Community
`
`Design No. 002000489-0015 (“RCD 0015”), a European design registered by
`
`Nike3 on March 2, 2012 and published on March 6, 2012, each more than two
`
`years before the ’783 Patent’s May 31, 2014 filing date.
`
`Although the ’783 Patent claims a priority date of February 29, 2012 via a
`
`string of five continuation applications, it is not entitled to that date. A patent is
`
`only entitled to the benefit of an earlier-filed application if, inter alia, the earlier-
`
`filed application discloses the claimed design of the patent while satisfying the
`
`written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1.4 35
`
`
`3 “Nike” in this petition refers to Patent Owner Nike, Inc., as well as counsel
`
`representing Nike, Inc. in patent prosecution proceedings and inventors who made
`
`patent prosecution submissions while under the employment of Nike, Inc.
`
`4 Because the scope of an inter partes review is limited to challenges under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, and only on the basis of prior art patents and printed
`
`publications, this petition does not challenge the written description or enablement
`
`of the ’783 Patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). Nevertheless, the written description
`
`
`
`1
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 9
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S.C. § 120; see also MPEP § 211.5 The application filed on February 29, 2012
`
`from which the ’783 Patent claims priority, U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`29/414,576 (“the ’576 Application”), includes none of the ’783 Patent’s three
`
`drawings. In fact, despite Nike’s representation to the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“USPTO”) that the ’576 Application included “only black and white line
`
`drawings” of the claimed design, it instead consisted of 140 color and grayscale
`
`photographic views of ten strikingly different shoe designs. For two key reasons—
`
`the predictable results of Nike’s use of the disfavored practice of submitting
`
`photographs instead of proper ink drawings6—the ’576 Application fails to
`
`disclose the claimed design of the ’783 Patent as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1.
`
`
`and enablement of the patent application on which the ’783 Patent claims priority
`
`is pertinent to the merits of that priority claim, and are therefore addressed in this
`
`petition for that limited reason.
`
`5 Because the ’783 Patent claims a priority date earlier than September 16, 2012,
`
`Skechers has applied the pre-America Invents Act version of 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`herein. The challenge raised in this petition would apply equally if the Board
`
`determines that the current version of § 112 applies, however.
`
`6 Photographs are permitted in design patent applications only if they are the “only
`
`practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention.” 37 C.F.R. § 184(b)(1).
`
`
`
`2
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 10
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`First, the written description requirement of § 112 ¶ 1 is not satisfied
`
`because the photographs used in the ’576 Application do not disclose at least five
`
`notable features of the design claimed in the ’783 Patent. These differences
`
`constitute new matter undisclosed in the ’576 Application, breaking any claim to
`
`priority based on that parent application. See Munchkin, Inc. v. Luv N’ Care, Ltd.,
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00072, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1580, 1583 (P.T.A.B. 2014), aff’d per
`
`curiam, 599 F. App’x 958 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (mem. op.).
`
`Second, the written description requirement of § 112 ¶ 1 is not satisfied
`
`because, by introducing new broken and solid lines and disclaiming significant
`
`portions of the ’576 Application’s disclosure (including the entire front, rear,
`
`medial, and top views of the design), Nike has claimed an entirely new design in
`
`the ’783 Patent. Nothing in the ’576 Application “suggest[s] anything uniquely
`
`
`Ink drawings are ordinarily required pursuant to the USPTO’s published rules for
`
`acceptable drawings. Id. Had the USPTO reviewed the ’576 Application, it might
`
`have rejected the application on these grounds. However, the USPTO never
`
`reviewed that application, both because Nike failed to pay search and examination
`
`fees and because, in the case of design patents, the Office of Patent Application
`
`Processing does not perform initial reviews of applications to determine if the
`
`drawings are acceptable. See MPEP § 507.
`
`3
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 11
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`patentable” about the “sole portion of a shoe” subsequently claimed in the ’783
`
`Patent. See In re Owens, 710 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Moreover,
`
`because the original design disclosed in the ’576 Application included its front,
`
`rear, medial, and top views, the ’576 Application lacked a written description for
`
`the absence of those views and Nike improperly introduced new matter by omitting
`
`them. See Ex parte Chu, Case No. 2001-0959, 2003 WL 22282257, at *6-7
`
`(B.P.A.I. 2003). Accordingly, the ’783 Patent is not entitled to the ’576
`
`Application’s filing date under § 112 ¶ 1 and § 120. See Owens, 710 F.3d at 1366.
`
`Without its priority filing date, the ’783 Patent is obvious over Nike’s own
`
`registration of a substantially identical design in RCD 0015. Because there is at
`
`least a reasonable likelihood that Skechers will prevail in this challenge to the ’783
`
`Patent, Skechers respectfully requests that the Board grant Skechers’ petition and
`
`institute inter partes review of the ’783 Patent.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING AND FEE AUTHORIZATION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Skechers certifies that the ’783 Patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Skechers is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting inter partes review on the ground identified herein.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.103(a), the Office is authorized to charge the sum
`
`of $23,000 to Deposit Account No. 50-0639 for the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a), and any additional fees that might be due.
`
`4
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 12
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`
`Real Party-in-Interest: The real party-in-interest is Skechers U.S.A., Inc., a
`
`Delaware corporation having a principal place of business at 228 Manhattan Beach
`
`Boulevard, Manhattan Beach, California 90266.
`
`Notice of Related Matters: Nike has asserted the ’783 Patent against Skechers in
`
`Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00007-PK, which was filed
`
`on January 4, 2016, and is currently pending in the United States District Court for
`
`the District of Oregon. See generally Skechers 1010.
`
`Petitioner’s Lead and Backup Counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel: Brian M. Berliner (Reg. No. 34,549), O’Melveny & Myers LLP,
`
`400 S. Hope Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071. (Telephone: 213-430-6000; Fax:
`
`213-430-6407; Email: bberliner@omm.com).
`
`Backup Counsel: Xin-Yi Zhou (Reg. No. 63,366), O’Melveny & Myers LLP, 400
`
`S. Hope Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071. (Telephone: 213-430-6000; Fax: 213-
`
`430-6407; Email: vzhou@omm.com).
`
`Service Information: Service of all documents may be made to the lead counsel
`
`and backup counsel at O’Melveny & Myers LLP, 400 S. Hope Street, Los Angeles,
`
`CA 90071, with courtesy copies to the following email addresses:
`
`bberliner@omm.com, skechersniketeam@omm.com, vzhou@omm.com.
`
`5
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 13
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`Skechers’ counsel may also be reached by telephone at 213-430-6000 and by
`
`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`facsimile at 213-430-6407.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF CHALLENGE
`
`Skechers seeks inter partes review on one ground of unpatentability: the sole
`
`claim of the ’783 Patent is invalid as obvious in view of RCD 0015, filed on
`
`February 29, 2012, registered on March 2, 2012, and published on March 6, 2012.
`
`See Skechers 1011 at 11.
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`A. The Improper, Omnibus ’576 Application
`
`On February 29, 2012, Nike filed the ’576 Application, which claimed “a
`
`new, original and ornamental design for a SHOE” and listed eleven inventors.
`
`Skechers 1003 (’576 File) at 9. Included in the specification are 140 photographic
`
`views of what Nike described in its submission as “only black and white line
`
`drawings,” id. at 88, and represented to be “alternative embodiment[s]” of the
`
`claimed shoe, id. at 9-15. The first 70 photographic views depicted ten “alternative
`
`embodiment[s]” in color and the latter 70 depict the same views in grayscale. Set
`
`forth below are the orthogonal views of each of these “alternative embodiment[s]”
`
`as depicted in the color photographic images.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 14
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`’576 Application: Representative Photographs
`
`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Fig. 1
`
`Fig. 3
`
`Fig. 4
`
`Fig. 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 8
`
`Fig. 10
`
`Fig. 11
`
`Fig. 17
`
`Fig. 9
`
`Fig. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 5
`
`Fig. 6
`
`Fig. 12
`
`Fig. 13
`
`Fig. 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 16
`
`Fig. 18
`
`Fig. 20
`
`7
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 15
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Fig. 22
`
`Fig. 24
`
`
`
`Fig. 23
`
`Fig. 25
`
`Fig. 31
`
`Fig. 29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 26
`
`Fig. 27
`
`Fig. 33
`
`Fig. 30
`
`Fig. 32
`
`Fig. 34
`
`Fig. 36
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 38
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 40
`
`Fig. 37
`
`Fig. 39
`
`Fig. 41
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 16
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Fig. 43
`
`
`
`Fig. 44
`
`Fig. 47
`
`Fig. 45
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 46
`
`Fig. 48
`
`
`
`Fig. 50
`
`Fig. 52
`
`
`
`Fig. 51
`
`Fig. 53
`
`
`
`Fig. 57
`
`
`
`Fig. 58
`
`Fig. 54
`
`Fig. 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 59
`
`Fig. 61
`
`
`
`Fig. 60
`
`Fig. 62
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 17
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Fig. 64
`
`
`
`Fig. 65
`
`Fig. 66
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 68
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 67
`
`Fig. 69
`
`The USPTO never substantively reviewed this application. Instead, on
`
`March 9, 2012, the USPTO notified Nike that the required oath or declaration was
`
`missing from the application and that the required basic, search, and examination
`
`fees were unpaid. Skechers 1003 at 92. The USPTO provided Nike two months to
`
`file these required items to avoid abandonment. Id.
`
`Five months later, on August 9, 2012, Nike responded to the USPTO’s
`
`notice by paying $1,650 in fees (an amount Nike contended represented the
`
`amount due for the basic filing fee, late filing fee, and fee for an extension). Id. at
`
`94-95. Nike did not submit an inventor oath or declaration or pay search and
`
`examination fees, contending that these were unnecessary because “a continuation
`
`application is being filed in lieu of submitting a declaration in the present
`
`application.” Id. The ’576 Application subsequently went abandoned.
`
`Id. at 102-03.
`
`10
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 18
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`B. Nike Delays Examination for More Than Two Years with Four
`Identical Continuation Applications
`
`On August 9, 2012—the same day Nike paid the basic fee in the ’576
`
`Application—Nike filed a second application, U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`29/429,338 (“the ’338 Application”), claiming benefit to the ’576 Application as a
`
`continuation. Skechers 1006 (’338 File) at 6. The ’338 Application contains a
`
`specification identical to that of the ’576 Application—i.e., it lists the same eleven
`
`inventors who claim to have invented “a new, original and ornamental design for a
`
`SHOE,” and it includes the same 140 photographic views of ten “alternative
`
`embodiment[s]” of the claimed shoe included in the ’576 Application. Id. at 9-16.
`
`As with the ’576 Application, the ’338 Application was filed without an oath or
`
`declaration and without payment of search and examination fees.
`
`On August 17, 2012, the USPTO notified Nike that the required oath or
`
`declaration was missing from the ’338 Application and that the required basic
`
`search and examination fees were unpaid. The USPTO again provided Nike two
`
`months to file these required items to avoid abandonment. Id. at 92-93.
`
`Five months later, on January 17, 2013, Nike responded to the USPTO’s
`
`notice by paying the basic filing fee, late filing fee, and fee for an extension. Id. at
`
`94-95. Once again, Nike did not file an inventor oath or declaration or pay search
`
`and examination fees, contending that these were unnecessary because “a
`
`11
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 19
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`continuation application is being filed in lieu of submitting a declaration in the
`
`present application.” Id.
`
`Over the next fourteen months, Nike repeated this process by filing three
`
`additional nearly identical continuation applications, each claiming benefit to the
`
`’576 Application by way of the intervening applications. U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 29/443,440 (“the ’440 Application”) was filed on January 17, 2013; U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 29/465,636 (“the ’636 Application”) was filed on
`
`August 29, 2013; U.S. Patent Application No. 29/481,800 (“the ’800 Application”)
`
`was filed on February 10, 2014. Skechers 1007 (’440 File) at 7; Skechers 1008
`
`(’636 File) at 8; Skechers 1009 (’800 File) at 8. All three applications included
`
`specifications identical to those of their parent applications, listing the same
`
`inventors and claiming inventorship of the same “new, original and ornamental
`
`design for a SHOE,” as illustrated in the same 140 “photographic views” of ten
`
`“alternative embodiment[s]” of the claimed designs. Skechers 1007 at 9-16;
`
`Skechers 1008 at 11-18; Skechers 1009 at 11-18. For each application, the USPTO
`
`promptly notified Nike that the required oath or declaration was missing and that
`
`the required basic, search, and examination fees were unpaid. In each instance,
`
`Nike responded by paying the basic filing fee, late filing fee, and fee for an
`
`extension, and by informing the USPTO that it was not filing an inventor oath or
`
`declaration or paying search and examination fees because “a continuation
`
`12
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 20
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`application is being filed in lieu of submitting a declaration in the present
`
`application.” Skechers 1007 at 95-96; Skechers 1008 at 96-97; Skechers 1009 at
`
`96-97. None of these applications was substantively reviewed by the USPTO
`
`before ultimately being abandoned. Skechers 1007 at 107; Skechers 1008 at 102;
`
`Skechers 1009 at 108.
`
`C. More Than Two Years After the ’576 Application, Nike Files a
`Fifth Continuation Seeking Priority to the ’576 Application
`
`On May 31, 2014, Nike filed thirteen more applications claiming benefit to
`
`the ’576 Application as continuations of the ’800, ’636, ’440, ’338, and ’576
`
`Applications. Among these applications was U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`29/492,575 (“the ’575 Application”), the application that matured to the ’783
`
`Patent. See Skechers 1002 (’575 File) at 14-15. In contrast to its five parent
`
`applications, which were all titled “Shoe,” Nike amended the title of the ’575
`
`Application to “Shoe Sole.” Skechers 1002 at 13. Nike later further described the
`
`design as being “generally directed to a design for a sole portion of a shoe.” See
`
`id. at 53. Unlike its parent applications, each of which included 140 photographic
`
`images of ten different shoe embodiments, the ’575 Application was filed with
`
`three black-and-white line drawings of a single embodiment, reproduced below.
`
`Noticeably absent from the drawings were the front, rear, medial, and top views of
`
`the claimed design.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 21
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`’783 Patent
`
`Figure 1
`
`Figure 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3
`
`14
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 22
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`On December 10, 2014, Nike filed a miscellaneous submission requesting
`
`that a priority claim of February 29, 2012 be granted. Id. at 53-54. Nike
`
`represented that the claimed design was “fully disclosed in the parent application”
`
`and that “the subset of elements forming the newly identified design claim is a
`
`self-contained design and/or share an operational and/or visual connection.” Id.
`
`Nike acknowledged that, because “[t]he claimed design in the present application
`
`substantially corresponds to an embodiment made commercial by the assignee
`
`more than one year prior to the actual filing date of the present application,” the
`
`claimed design “would not be valid if the effective filing date of the currently
`
`claimed design is determined not to be February 29, 2012 (i.e., the filing date of
`
`the parent application).” Id. at 53.
`
`On January 26, 2015, the USPTO issued a notice of allowability, accepting
`
`the priority claim with the following examiner’s comment:
`
`[T]he examiner agrees that the design of the instant application has
`
`basis in the series of parent applications . . . . As noted by applicant,
`
`the claimed design of the instant application is evident in the earliest
`
`application as a subset of elements forming a self-contained design.
`
`In this instance, the claimed design is seen in original Figures 1
`
`through 7 as well as in Figures 71 through 77 in 29/481,800 (its
`
`immediate parent) and similarly throughout the series of continuation
`
`applications back to 29/414,576. As such, the claim to continuity is
`
`considered by the examiner to be valid and proper.
`
`15
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 23
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Id. at 80-82. The ’783 Patent issued on March 10, 2015. Id. at 149.
`
`D. The Prior Art
`
`On February 29, 2012—the same day Nike filed the ’576 Application—Nike
`
`applied for a European design registration, which issued as RCD 0015. Skechers
`
`1011 at 3. RCD 0015 registered on March 2, 2012, and published on March 6,
`
`2012. Id. at 11. It identifies “shoes” as “Indication of the products” and includes
`
`six photographs of a shoe design that are set forth below. Id. at 3, 12. Those
`
`photographs are identical to photographs submitted with the ’576 Application,
`
`namely, Figures 71 through 76. Skechers 1003 at 52-54. As is readily apparent to
`
`designers of ordinary skill in the art, the shoe design depicted in RCD 0015 creates
`
`substantially the same overall visual appearance as Figures 1 and 3 of the ’783
`
`Patent.
`
`RCD 0015
`
`Representation 0015.1
`
`
`
`Representation 0015.2
`
`
`
`16
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 24
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`RCD 0015
`
`Representation 0015.3
`
`
`
`Representation 0015.4
`
`
`
`Representation 0015.6
`
`
`
`Representation 0015.5
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’783 Patent would have at least
`
`(1) a degree in Industrial Design and two years of work experience as an industrial
`
`designer or (2) two years of direct experience creating footwear designs. Skechers
`
`1012 ¶ 39.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A patent claim subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`17
`
`NIKE Ex. 2049 - Page 25
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. D723,783
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`appears.”7 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Although courts and this Board ordinarily do
`
`not “‘construe’ a design patent claim by providing a detailed verbal description of
`
`the claimed design,” the Federal Circuit has noted that it may be “helpful to point
`
`out . . . various features of the claimed design as they relate to the . . . prior art.”
`
`Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 679-80 (Fed Cir. 2008); see,
`
`e.g., Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015) (“We have explained, however, that there are a number of claim scope issues
`
`which may benefit from verbal or written guidance, among them the distinction
`