UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`SKECHERS U.S.A., INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NIKE, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`
`Issued: March 31, 2015
`
`Named Inventor: Mark C. Miner
`
`Title: Shoe Sole
`___________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. D725,359 S
`SECOND PETITION
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 1
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`D.
`E.
`F.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 1
`MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8................. 3
`A. Notice of Real Party-In-Interest 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))................... 3
`B.
`Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))........................... 3
`C.
`Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. §
`42.8(b)(3)) .......................................................................................... 3
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) .................................... 4
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)............................................... 4
`Certification of Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(a)) ........................................................................................... 4
`CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED ............................................ 5
`A.
`Specific Art And Statutory Ground(s) On Which The
`Challenges Are Based ........................................................................ 5
`THE '359 PATENT ..................................................................................... 8
`A.
`The Subject Matter Of The '359 Patent.............................................. 8
`B.
`The Prosecution Of The '359 Patent................................................. 11
`THE PRIOR ART ..................................................................................... 16
`A.
`Proposed Primary Reference RCD0018........................................... 17
`1.
`RCD0018 Qualifies As Prior Art.......................................... 17
`2.
`The Disclosure Of RCD0018 ............................................... 17
`Proposed Primary Reference RCD0007........................................... 20
`1.
`RCD0007 Qualifies As Prior Art.......................................... 20
`
`B.
`
`- i -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 2
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`Page
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`The Disclosure Of RCD0007 ............................................... 21
`2.
`Proposed Secondary Reference RCD0012 (Two Sipes At
`Heel) ................................................................................................. 24
`1.
`RCD0012 Qualifies As Prior Art.......................................... 24
`2.
`The Disclosure Of RCD0012 ............................................... 25
`Proposed Secondary Reference The '945 Patent (Number,
`Width, and Placement Of Sipes) ...................................................... 29
`1.
`The '945 Patent Qualifies As Prior Art................................. 29
`2.
`The Disclosure Of The '945 Patent....................................... 29
`Proposed Secondary Reference The '853 Patent (Vertical
`Grooves) ........................................................................................... 31
`1.
`The '853 Patent Qualifies As Prior Art................................. 31
`2.
`The Disclosure Of The '853 Patent....................................... 31
`Proposed Secondary Reference The '725 Patent (Vertical
`Grooves) ........................................................................................... 33
`1.
`The '725 Patent Qualifies As Prior Art................................. 33
`2.
`The Disclosure Of The '725 Patent....................................... 33
`Proposed Secondary Reference CN1388 (Sipes And Vertical
`Grooves) ........................................................................................... 35
`1.
`CN1388 Qualifies As Prior Art ............................................ 35
`2.
`The Disclosure Of CN1388 .................................................. 35
`Proposed Secondary Reference RCD0005 (Sipes, Rand,
`Vertical Grooves) ............................................................................. 38
`1.
`RCD0005 Qualifies As Prior Art.......................................... 38
`
`- ii -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 3
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`Page
`
`The Disclosure Of RCD0005 ............................................... 39
`2.
`VI. DESIGNER HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART..................... 42
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................... 43
`A.
`Sipes ................................................................................................. 44
`B.
`Vertical Grooves............................................................................... 47
`C.
`Rand Stripe....................................................................................... 48
`D. Heel Portion Of Outsole................................................................... 49
`VIII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE SOLE
`CLAIM OF THE '359 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE.......................... 50
`A.
`Legal Standard.................................................................................. 50
`1.
`The Primary Reference......................................................... 51
`2.
`Secondary References........................................................... 53
`Ground 1: The Claim Is Rendered Obvious By RCD0018 In
`View Of RCD0012 And The '945 Patent......................................... 53
`1.
`RCD0018 Qualifies As A Primary Reference Because
`It Provides "Basically The Same Visual Impression"
`As The '359 Patent................................................................ 53
`Any Differences Between RCD0018 And The '359
`Patent Are De Minimis And Would Have Been
`Obvious To A DHOSITA..................................................... 59
`RCD0012 And The '945 Patent Teach Modifying The
`Number, Widths, and Placement Of Sipes ........................... 64
`RCD0012 Teaches Modifying The Heel Region Of
`The Outsole........................................................................... 68
`See Ex. 1001, Fig. 5; Ex. 1005, Fig. 5 (annotated)..................................... 70
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`- iii -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 4
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`Page
`
`C.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Ground 2: The Claim Is Rendered Obvious By RCD0018 In
`View Of RCD0012, The '945 Patent, And The '853 Patent............. 70
`1.
`The '853 Patent Teaches Narrowly Spaced Vertical
`Grooves Or Lines.................................................................. 71
`D. Ground 3: The Claim Is Rendered Obvious By RCD0018 In
`View of RCD0012, The '945 Patent, And The '725 Patent.............. 73
`1.
`The '725 Patent Teaches Narrowly Spaced Vertical
`Grooves................................................................................. 73
`Ground 4: The Claim Is Rendered Obvious By RCD0018 In
`View of RCD0012, The '945 Patent, And CN1388 ......................... 75
`1.
`CN1388 Teaches Narrowly Spaced Vertical Grooves......... 75
`Ground 5: The Claim Is Rendered Obvious By RCD0018 In
`View of RCD0012, The '945 Patent, And RCD0005 ...................... 76
`2.
`RCD0005 Teaches Narrowly Spaced Vertical
`Grooves................................................................................. 77
`G. Ground 6: The Claim Is Rendered Obvious By RCD0007 In
`View Of RCD0012 And The '945 Patent......................................... 79
`1.
`RCD0007 Qualifies As A Primary Reference Because
`It Provides "Basically The Same Visual Impression"
`As The '359 Patent................................................................ 79
`Any Differences Between RCD0007 And The '359
`Patent Are De Minimis And Would Have Been
`Obvious To A DHOSITA..................................................... 85
`RCD0012 And The '945 Patent Teach Modifying The
`Number, Widths, And Placement Of Sipes.......................... 86
`RCD0012 Teaches Modifying The Heel Region Of
`The Outsole........................................................................... 88
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`- iv -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 5
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`H. Ground 7: The Claim Is Rendered Obvious By RCD0007 In
`View Of RCD0012, The '945 Patent, And The '853 Patent............. 90
`1.
`The '853 Patent Teaches Extending The Vertical
`Grooves Or Lines.................................................................. 91
`Ground 8: The Claim Is Rendered Obvious By RCD0007 In
`View Of RCD0012, The '945 Patent, And The '725 Patent............. 93
`1.
`The '725 Patent Teaches Extending The Vertical
`Grooves................................................................................. 93
`Ground 9: The Claim Is Rendered Obvious By RCD0007 In
`View Of RCD0012, The '945 Patent, And CN1388 ........................ 95
`1.
`CN1388 Teaches Extending The Vertical Grooves ............. 95
`K. Ground 10: The Claim Is Rendered Obvious By RCD0007 In
`View of RCD0012, The '945 Patent, And RCD0005 ...................... 98
`1.
`RCD0005 Teaches Extending The Vertical Grooves........... 98
`
`J.
`
`- v -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 6
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Agilent Techs. Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc.,
`No. C 06-05958 JW, 2008 WL 7348188 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2008) .................43
`In re Aslanian,
`590 F.2d 911 (CCPA 1979) ................................................................................17
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`793 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..........................................................................43
`Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co.,
`101 F.3d 100 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ........................................................................3, 50
`Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.,
`543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................44
`High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.,
`730 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..............................................................50, 51, 53
`Jore Corp. v. Kouvato, Inc.,
`117 F. App'x 761 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................51
`In re Lamb,
`286 F.2d 610 (C.C.P.A. 1961)......................................................................53, 60
`Low's Home Centers, LLC, v. Reddy,
`IPR2015-00306, Paper No. 21 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)..................................17
`MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter MFG, LLP,
`747 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................passim
`In re Nalbandian,
`661 F.2d 1214 (CCPA 1981).......................................................................passim
`NIKE, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.,
`Case 3:16-cv-00007-PK (D. Ore.) ........................................................................3
`
`- vi -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 7
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`Page(s)
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102.................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 103.................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319.............................................................................................1, 8
`Rules and Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .....................................................................................................3, 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)...................................................................................................4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 .......................................................................................................5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ...............................................................................................1, 43
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .................................................................................................4, 5
`Other Authorities
`Council Regulation 6/2002, arts. 73-74, 2002 O.J. (L 3) 28 (EC) ..........................16
`MPEP § 2127 ...........................................................................................................16
`
`- vii -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 8
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S (the "'359 patent")
`
`Certified Registration and Extract from the Register for
`Registered Community Design No. 000120449-0018
`("RCD0018")
`
`Certified Registration and Extract from the Register for
`Registered Community Design No. 000827613-0007
`("RCD0007")
`
`Certified Registration and Extract from the Register for
`Registered Community Design No. 001874165-0005
`("RCD0005")
`
`Certified Registration and Extract from the Register for
`Registered Community Design No. 000725247-0012
`("RCD0012")
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,115,945 ("the '945 patent")
`
`U.S. Patent No. D447,853S ("the '853 patent")
`
`U.S. Patent No. D520,725 ("the '725 patent")
`
`China Design Registration No. CN 301711388 S ("CN1388")
`
`Complaint, Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 3:16-
`cv-00007-PK (D. Or.)
`
`Council Regulation 6/2002
`
`File History, including the Supplemental Content drawings,
`for U.S. Patent Application No. 29/492,567 ("the '567
`Application"), which ultimately issued as U.S. Patent No.
`D725,359
`
`- viii -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 9
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`Exhibit
`1013
`
`Description
`Declaration of Robert John Anders in Support of Skechers
`U.S.A., Inc.'s Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. D725,359
`
`1014
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Robert John Anders
`
`- ix -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 10
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`In accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.,
`
`Petitioner Skechers U.S.A., Inc. ("Skechers" or "Petitioner") respectfully requests
`
`that the Board institute inter partes review of the sole claim of U.S. Patent No.
`
`D725,359S ("the '359 patent") (Ex. 1001), which is owned by NIKE, Inc. ("Nike"
`
`or "Patent Owner"), and cancel that claim because it is unpatentable in view of
`
`prior art patents and printed publications.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The '359 patent claims the ornamental design of a portion of an athletic shoe
`
`sole, specifically, the midsole portion residing generally between the unclaimed
`
`upper of the shoe and the unclaimed outsole (or bottom) of the shoe. The design,
`
`when viewed as a whole, comprises (a) vertical sipes (or cracks) along the midsole;
`
`(b) vertical grooves along the midsole between the sipes; (c) a curved rand stripe
`
`above the midsole; and (d) a portion of the heel area of the outsole with a grid-like
`
`pattern of pads. These key features are labeled in the demonstrative below.
`
`- 1 -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 11
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`See Ex. 1001, Figs. 2, 7 (annotated).
`
`However, this claimed design was obvious to a designer having ordinary
`
`skill in the art ("DHOSITA") in view of the fact that others, including Nike, had
`
`previously disclosed (and registered in the European Union) midsole and outsole
`
`designs that create basically the same visual impression as the claimed design. As
`
`set forth in each ground below, Petitioner has identified a primary reference, the
`
`design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design of the
`
`'359 patent. That is, each of the primary references comprises, (a) vertical sipes (or
`
`cracks) along the midsole; (b) vertical grooves along the midsole between the
`
`sipes; (c) a rand stripe above the midsole; and (d) a portion of the heel area of the
`
`outsole with a grid-like pattern of pads. As further set forth below, any differences
`
`between the claimed design and the primary references are de minimis.
`
`- 2 -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 12
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`Alternatively, Petitioner has identified secondary references that are so
`
`similar and related in appearance to the primary references that a DHOSITA would
`
`have been motivated to combine the primary and secondary references to create a
`
`design having the same overall visual appearance as the '359 patent. Thus, the '359
`
`patent is invalid as obvious. See Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., 101 F.3d 100,
`
`103 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Because there is at least a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Skechers will prevail in this challenge to the '359 patent, Skechers respectfully
`
`requests that the Board grant Skechers' Petition and institute inter partes review of
`
`the '359 patent.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A.
`Notice of Real Party-In-Interest 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`The real-party in interest for this Petition is Skechers U.S.A., Inc.
`
`Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`B.
`The '359 patent is presently at issue in the action titled NIKE, Inc. v.
`
`Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case 3:16-cv-00007-PK (D. Ore.). A copy of the complaint
`
`is provided as Exhibit 1010. The '359 patent was the subject of an earlier petition
`
`("Petition 1") and proceeding, IPR2016-00871.
`
`Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`C.
`Lead Counsel: Samuel K. Lu (Reg. No. 40,707)
`
`Backup Counsel: Michael R. Fleming (Reg. No. 67,933)
`
`- 3 -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 13
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`Address: Irell & Manella LLP, 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900,
`
`Los Angeles, CA 90067 | Tel: (310) 277-1010 | Fax: (310) 203-7199
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`D.
`Please address all correspondence to the lead and backup counsel above.
`
`Petitioner also consents to email service at SkechersNikeIPR@irell.com.
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`E.
`The Office is authorized to charge Deposit Account No. 09-0946 for any
`
`fees required for this Petition, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a),
`
`referencing Docket No. 160283-0022 (359IPR), and for any other required fees.
`
`Certification of Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`F.
`Petitioner certifies that the '359 patent is eligible for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review of
`
`the challenged claim of the '359 patent on the grounds identified herein. Petitioner
`
`has been sued for infringement of the '359 patent. See Ex. 1010. However, a copy
`
`of the complaint was served on Skechers on January 7, 2016, and this Petition
`
`("Second Petition" or "Petition 2") is being filed within one year of the service of
`
`the complaint. Although Skechers previously filed an IPR petition for the '359
`
`patent, no IPR was instituted and there was no final written decision to estop
`
`Petitioner from filing Petition 2.
`
`- 4 -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 14
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`III. CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1) and §§ 42.104(b) and (b)(1), Petitioner
`
`challenges the claim of the '359 patent. Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes
`
`review and cancellation of the challenged claim of the '359 patent based on the
`
`grounds below.
`
`Specific Art And Statutory Ground(s) On Which The Challenges
`A.
`Are Based
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2), inter partes review of the '359 patent
`
`is requested in view of the following references, each of which is prior art to the
`
`'359 patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (b)1:
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`Certified Registration and Extract from the Register for Registered
`Community Design No. 000120449-0018 ("RCD0018")
`
`Certified Registration and Extract from the Register for Registered
`Community Design No. 000827613-0007 ("RCD0007")
`
`Certified Registration and Extract from the Register for Registered
`Community Design No. 000725247-0012 ("RCD0012")
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,115,945 ("the '945 patent")
`
`U.S. Patent No. D447,853S ("the '853 patent")
`
`U.S. Patent No. D520,725 ("the '725 patent")
`
`1 All further references to § 102 contained herein, unless otherwise noted,
`
`shall refer to pre-AIA § 102.
`
`- 5 -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 15
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`7
`
`8
`
`China Design Registration No. CN 301711388 S ("CN1388")
`
`Certified Registration and Extract from the Register for Registered
`Community Design No. 001874165-0005 ("RCD0005")
`
`References 1-6 qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because each
`
`was published or issued more than one year before the earliest priority date
`
`asserted by Nike for the '359 patent, February 29, 2012.2 References 1-3 also
`
`qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(d) as foreign patent equivalents because
`
`each was registered more than one year before the earliest priority date asserted by
`
`Nike for the '359 patent. References 7 and 8 qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(a) because each was published or issued before the earliest priority date
`
`asserted by Nike for the '359 patent.
`
`None of the references relied upon in this Petition were before the Examiner
`
`during the prosecution of the '359 patent.3 Thus, this Second Petition does not
`
`2 Nike asserts a priority date for the '359 patent of February 29, 2012. As set
`
`forth in Petition 1, Petitioner does not believe that Nike is entitled to this priority
`
`date. However, for purposes of this Petition 2, Petitioner will utilize the priority
`
`date claimed by Nike.
`
`3 While the detailed images of RCD0018, RCD0007, and RCD0012 were
`
`not before the Examiner, Nike's non-patent literature ("NPL") submissions during
`
`- 6 -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 16
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`present the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments presented during
`
`the prosecution of the '359 patent. This Second Petition also raises new arguments
`
`and relies upon different prior art combinations than IPR2016-00871.
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of the challenged claim under the following
`
`statutory grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`35 U.S.C.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`References(s)
`
`RCD0018 In View Of RCD0012 And The '945
`Patent
`
`RCD0018 In View Of RCD0012, The '945
`Patent, And The '853 Patent
`
`RCD0018 In View Of RCD0012, The '945
`Patent, And The '725 Patent
`
`RCD0018 In View Of RCD0012, The '945
`Patent, And CN1388
`
`RCD0018 In View Of RCD0012, The '945
`Patent, And RCD0005
`
`the prosecution of the application include lower-resolution images that resemble
`
`the shoes depicted in RCD0018, RCD0007 and RCD0012. See Ex. 1012 at 165,
`
`167. This NPL submission, however, depicts shoes in only the lateral and outsole
`
`views and does not include the other images that appear in RCD0018, RCD0007,
`
`or RCD0012. Moreover, the Examiner did not cite or discuss this particular NPL
`
`submission during the prosecution of the '359 patent.
`
`- 7 -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 17
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`RCD0007 In View Of RCD0012 And The '945
`Patent
`
`RCD0007 In View Of RCD0012, The '945
`Patent, And The '853 Patent
`
`RCD0007 In View Of RCD0012, The '945
`Patent, And The '725 Patent
`
`RCD0007 In View Of RCD0012, The '945
`Patent, And CN1388
`
`10
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`RCD0007 In View Of RCD0012, The '945
`Patent, And RCD0005
`
`Section VIII demonstrates, for each of the statutory grounds, that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`Additional explanation and support for each ground is set forth in the expert
`
`declaration of Robert John Anders (Exhibit 1013).
`
`IV. THE '359 PATENT
`A.
`The Subject Matter Of The '359 Patent
`The application for the '359 patent was filed on May 31, 2014 and issued on
`
`March 31, 2015. See Ex. 1001. Through earlier related applications, Nike asserts
`
`a priority date for the '359 patent of February 29, 2012. Ex. 1001 at 1. As set forth
`
`in Petition 1, Nike is not entitled to this February 29, 2012 priority date. However,
`
`for purposes of this Petition 2, Petitioner will utilize the February 29, 2012 priority
`
`date claimed by Nike.
`
`- 8 -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 18
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`The '359 patent is titled "Shoe Sole" and claims "[t]he ornamental design for
`
`a shoe sole, as shown and described." Id. The '359 patent incudes seven figures
`
`depicting the lateral side view (i.e., outward-facing), medial side view (i.e., inward
`
`facing), front view (i.e., facing the toe of the shoe), rear view (i.e., facing the heel
`
`of the shoe), top view, and outsole view (i.e., the bottom facing portion that
`
`directly contacts the surface being walked on) of a shoe midsole design. These
`
`figures are reproduced below:
`
`- 9 -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 19
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`Ex. 1001, Figs. 1-7.
`
`It is important to note that what is claimed in the '359 patent is not the entire
`
`shoe sole. Per the Description in the '359 patent, "[t]he broken lines within the
`
`shaded area form no part of the claimed design. The broken lines showing the
`
`remainder of the shoe are for environmental purposes only and form no part of the
`
`claimed design." Id. at Description. Figures 7 depicts a full view of the outsole.
`
`Some portions of the heel region are drawn in solid line and are claimed. The
`
`portions of the outsole that are drawn in broken lines are not claimed. Also, small
`
`portions of the outsole are shown in Figures 2-5 (i.e., the "pads" protruding out
`
`from the bottom of the shoe). The portions drawn in broken grooves are not
`
`claimed. The portions drawn in solid lines are claimed. Finally, the upper of the
`
`shoe is also drawn in broken grooves and is therefore not claimed. Id.
`
`The sole claim of the '359 patent is discussed in detail in Section VII, Claim
`
`Construction.
`
`- 10 -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 20
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`The Prosecution Of The '359 Patent
`B.
`During the ex parte prosecution of the '359 patent, Patent Owner submitted
`
`the Declaration of Mark C. Miner (the "Miner Declaration"), asserting that "[t]he
`
`claimed design was conceived of and/or reduced to practice in the U.S. on or
`
`before June 22, 2011." Ex. 1012 at 88-98. However, the declaration and
`
`accompanying drawings do not suffice to establish either conception or diligent
`
`reduction to practice of the shoe design that was actually filed upon and claimed in
`
`the '359 patent.
`
`Specifically, there are notable differences between what is depicted in the
`
`Miner Declaration as existing as of June 22, 2011 and what was ultimately filed
`
`upon by Nike on February 29, 2012 and what actually issued as the '359
`
`patent. For example, the heel of the shoes depicted in the Miner Declaration do not
`
`contain the two wide notched sipes in the claimed '359 design.
`
`- 11 -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 21
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`- 12 -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 22
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`See Ex. 1001, Fig. 5; Ex. 1012 at 94, 96, 98.
`
`Similarly, the toe and heel areas of the medial and lateral sides of the shoes
`
`depicted in the Miner Declaration do not contain the wide notched sipes that are
`
`found in the claimed '359 design.
`
`- 13 -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 23
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`- 14 -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 24
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`See Ex. 1001, Figs. 2, 3 Ex. 1012 at 94, 96, 98.
`
`Because the Miner Declaration does not establish that the declarant had
`
`conceived of the design claimed in the '359 patent as of June 22, 2011, it does not
`
`suffice to establish that, as of that date, Nike had either conceived of or reduced to
`
`practice the design that was ultimately filed upon by Nike in February 2012 and
`
`that issued as the '359 patent. Ex. 1013, ¶48. Therefore, Nike cannot rely on the
`
`- 15 -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 25
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`Miner Declaration or its attachments to swear behind the 102(a) prior art
`
`(RCD0005 and CN1388) in Petition 2.
`
`V.
`
`THE PRIOR ART
`Nike asserts a priority date for the '359 patent of February 29, 2012. As set
`
`forth in Petition 1, Petitioner does not believe that Nike is entitled to this priority
`
`date. However, for purposes of this Petition 2, Petitioner will utilize the priority
`
`date of February 29, 2012 claimed by Nike.
`
`A number of the prior art references discussed below are registered
`
`Community designs. These references constitute printed publications. See Ex.
`
`1011 (Council Regulation 6/2002, arts. 73-74, 2002 O.J. (L 3) 28, 29 (EC) ("This
`
`Office shall periodically publish a Community Design Bulletin containing entries
`
`open to public inspection in the register . . . Subsequent to the publication of the
`
`registered Community design, the file may be inspected on request.")).
`
`Accordingly, registered Community designs are sufficiently accessible to
`
`constitute a publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102. See MPEP § 2127 ("When the
`
`specification is . . . announced in an official journal and anyone can inspect or
`
`obtain copies, it is sufficiently accessible to the public to constitute a
`
`'publication.'").
`
`One of the references is a utility patents. However, "the teachings in utility
`
`patents are within the prior art to be considered when determining the patentability
`
`- 16 -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 26
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`of designs even though the patentability of a design may not be predicated on
`
`utilitarian or functional considerations." In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 913 (CCPA
`
`1979) (citations omitted); see also Low's Home Centers, LLC, v. Reddy, IPR2015-
`
`00306, Paper No. 21 at p. 9 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016) (It is "well-settled law that
`
`teachings of a prior art utility patent may be considered in a design context.").
`
`A.
`
`Proposed Primary Reference RCD0018
`1.
`RCD0018 Qualifies As Prior Art
`RCD0018 qualifies as prior art because it was published and publicly
`
`accessible more than one year before Nike's earliest asserted priority date (i.e.,
`
`before February 29, 2012). Ex. 1002. In particular, RCD0018 was registered on
`
`December 22, 2003 and published on March 23, 2004. Id. RCD0018 therefore
`
`qualifies as a 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) prior art printed publication and a 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(d) prior art foreign patent equivalent for purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`The Disclosure Of RCD0018
`2.
`Under "Indication of the products," RCD0018 identifies the products as
`
`"shoes." Ex. 1002. RCD0018 includes what appear to be photographic images of
`
`a shoe design, reproduced below. Like the '359 patent, RCD0018 includes images
`
`of the lateral, medial, front, rear, and top views of the midsole. RCD0018 also
`
`includes images of the outsole. Ex. 1013, ¶49 .
`
`- 17 -
`
`NIKE Ex. 2052 - Page 27
`Skechers v. NIKE
`IPR2017-00620
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. D725,359 S
`Petition 2
`
`Fig. 1
`
`Fig. 2
`
`Fig. 3
`
`Fig. 4
`
`Fig. 5
`
`Fig. 7
`
`Fig. 6
`
`Ex. 1002, Figs. 1-7.
`
`The relevant portions of the midsole depicted in RCD0018 comprise