Ralph Lauren Corporation v. Hirshfeld

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: July 7, 2021
• Docket: 20-1862
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 20-1862 Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 07/07/2021

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, Appellant

v.

ANDREW HIRSHFELD, PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Intervenor ______________________

2020-1862, 2020-1864 ______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2018- 01749, IPR2018-01755. ______________________

Decided: July 7, 2021 ______________________

JAMES F. VALENTINE, Perkins Coie LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for appellant. Also represented by VICTORIA Q. SMITH; DAN L. BAGATELL, Hanover, NH.

DANIEL KAZHDAN, Office of the Solicitor, United States Case: 20-1862 Document: 58 Page: 2 Filed: 07/07/2021

Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for interve- nor. Also represented by THOMAS W. KRAUSE, MAUREEN DONOVAN QUELER, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED. ______________________

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, REYNA and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. MOORE, Chief Judge. Ralph Lauren appeals two inter partes review final written decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding Ralph Lauren failed to prove claims 70 and 72 of U.S. Patent No. 5,995,102 and claims 1–3, 5–7, 12–15, 28, 29, 31, 32, 38, 39, 53–56, 58–63, 73–75, and 77–80 of U.S. Patent No. 6,118,449 would have been obvious. In both de- cisions, the Board determined that Ralph Lauren’s peti- tions had not adequately identified where and how the prior art teaches certain limitations. See J.A. 24–25, 61. The Board also declined to consider arguments that Ralph Lauren made for the first time in its reply briefs. See J.A. 33, 78–79. Ralph Lauren challenges these determinations, arguing the Board misinterpreted or failed to consider por- tions of the petitions. We review the Board’s compliance with legal standards de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We review the Board’s determination that a peti- tioner exceeded the scope of a proper reply for abuse of dis- cretion. Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We see no error in the Board’s reasoning, nor do we conclude the Board abused its discretion. Ralph Lauren’s challenges have no merit. The Board stepped through the evidence presented in the petitions and, based on the gaps it identified in the petitions’ arguments and evidence, de- termined Ralph Lauren had not met its burden of demon- strating unpatentability. See J.A. 33, 78–79. The Board Case: 20-1862 Document: 58 Page: 3 Filed: 07/07/2021

RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION v. HIRSHFELD 3

also did not abuse its discretion by declining to consider ar- guments Ralph Lauren made in its reply that it failed to make in its petitions. See J.A. 24–25, 61. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED