MacSports v. Idea Nuova - Petition For IPR

U.S. Design Patent No.
D752,890
Petition For Inter Partes Review
Paper No.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
MACSPORTS, INC.
Petitioner
v.
IDEA NUOVA, INC.,
Patent Owner
U.S. Design Patent No. D752,890

Issue Date: April 5, 2016
Title: FOLDABLE CLUB CHAIR
Inter Partes Review No. IPR2018-01006
PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW

UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1
II. NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, ET AL.................................................2
A. Real Parties-In-Interest..........................................................................2
B. Related Matters......................................................................................3
C. Designation of Counsel .........................................................................3
D. Service Information...............................................................................3
E. Payment Of Fees ...................................................................................4
F. Grounds for Standing ............................................................................4
G. Threshold Requirement For Inter Partes Review.................................4
III. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(3)........5
A. Identification of the Challenged Claim .................................................5
B. The Specific Statutory Grounds ............................................................6
C. Construction of the Challenged Claim..................................................7
(1) Legal Standards for Construing a Design Patent........................7
(2) Construction of the ’890 Patent ..................................................8
IV. HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIM IS UNPATENTABLE – 37

C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ......................................................................................9
A. The Legal Standards for Anticipation of a Design Patent ....................9
B. CampingWorld.com 360 Anticipates as a Single Reference ..............10
C. Ground 1. The ’890 Patent Claim is Anticipated Under 35

U.S.C. § 102 over CampingWorld.com 360 .......................................12
i
(1) The ’890 Patent vs. CampingWorld.com 360: Frame
Related Members ......................................................................13
(2) The ’890 Patent vs. CampingWorld.com 360: Curved

Upper Support Related Members..............................................18
(3) The ’890 Patent vs. CampingWorld.com 360: Cushion

Member .....................................................................................21
D. Legal Standards for Obviousness of a Design Patent .........................26
E. The Designer of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..........................................28
F. Ground 2. The ’890 Patent Claim is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C.

§ 103 over CampingWorld.com Webpages ........................................28
(1) The ’890 Patent vs. CampingWorld.com Webpages:

Frame Related Members ...........................................................30

Curved Upper Support Related Members.................................34

Cushion Member.......................................................................37
G. Ground 3. The ’890 Patent Claim is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C.

§ 103 Over the Combination of CampingWorld.com 360 and
CampingWorld.com Webpages ..........................................................41
V. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................43
VI. CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ...........................................................44
VII. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE......................................................................45
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd.,
678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ....................................................................26, 27
In Re Baxter Travenol Labs,

952 F.2d 388 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ............................................................................12
Bernhardt LLC v. Collezione Europa U.S., Inc.,

422 F. Supp. 2d 561 (M.D.N.C. 2006) .........................................................10, 25
In re Borden,
90 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................26
Chore-Time Equip., Inc. v. Cumberland Corp.,

713 F.2d 774 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ............................................................................28
Crestron Elecs., Inc. v. Intuitive Bldg. Controls, Inc.,

No. IPR2015-01379, 2015 WL 13631028
(P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2015) ........................................................................11, 29, 41
Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,

598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ......................................................................8, 10
Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,

136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016)..........................................................................................8
Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne,

256 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ....................................................................10, 25
Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co.,

101 F.3d 100 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ......................................................................26, 30
Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.,

543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ......................................................................7, 8, 9
Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White,

81 U.S. 511 (1871)........................................................................................10, 25
iii
In re GPAC,
57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................28
Haliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. Dynamic 3D Geosolutions LLC,

No. IPR2014-01186, 2015 WL 5565065
(P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2015) ...................................................................11, 12, 29, 41
In re Haruna,
249 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ..........................................................................26
High Point Design LLC v. Buyer’s Direct, Inc.,

730 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................26, 27
Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp.,

589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................9, 10, 25
In re Lamb,
286 F.2d 610 (Cust. & Pat. App. Feb. 6, 1961)..................................................29
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,

No. CBM2012-00003, 2016 WL 9494791
(P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012).......................................................................................7
Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp.,

728 F.2d 1423 (1984)....................................................................................10, 25
MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP,

747 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................26, 27, 37, 40
Okajima v. Bourdeau,
261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ..........................................................................28
Orion IP, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am.,

605 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................12
Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.,

597 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................8
Sensio, Inc. v. Select Brands, Inc.,

No. IPR2013-00500, 2014 WL 2507791
(P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2014)...........................................................................9, 10, 25
iv
Statutes
35 U.S.C. § 102.................................................................................................passim
35 U.S.C. § 103.................................................................................................passim
35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .....................................................................................................4
Other Authorities
37 C.F.R. § 1.152 .......................................................................................................8
37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .........................................................................................................2
37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)...................................................................................................4
37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................8
37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .....................................................................................................4
37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ....................................................................................5, 6, 8, 9
v
EXHIBIT LIST
Ex. 1001 – U.S. Design Patent No. D752,890 (the “’890 Patent”)
Ex. 1002 – U.S. Design Patent No. D752,890 File History
Ex. 1003 – Internet Archive Affidavit of Christopher Butler
Ex. 1004 – Exhibit A to Affidavit of Christopher Butler: Webpage Images from
CampingWorld.com (“CampingWorld.com”)
Ex. 1005 – Declaration of Jeffrey Geisler
Ex. 1006 – Exhibit A to Declaration of Jeffrey Geisler: 360 Degree View of Club
Chair from CampingWorld.com (“CampingWorld.com 360”)
vi
I. INTRODUCTION
Over four years before the filing of Patent No. D752,890 (the ’890 Patent),
Petitioner sold chairs that were substantially the same as the design claimed by the
’890 Patent. Petitioner files this petition to stop the ’890 Patent from being used to
cast doubt in the market on Petitioner’s ability to continue selling its own chairs.
As documented below and in the attached exhibits, Petitioner sold its own
pre-existing chairs on Camping World’s e-commerce website back to 2010. The
Internet Archive periodically crawled campingworld.com, captured, auto date-
stamped, and stored webpages and images from Camping World’s website, which
were all publicly available well before the filing date. These pages and images are
printed publications and depict a “Foldable Club Chair” substantially the same as
the one claimed in the ’890 Patent. A side-by-side comparison speaks volumes:
The Prior Art – Dated 2013 The ’890 Patent – Filed 2015
(Ex. 1004) (Ex. 1001)
1
As can be seen by the ordinary observer, the chairs are virtually identical in all
material respects. As a result, Camping World’s prior art webpages anticipate the
’890 Patent, and the patent should be cancelled.
In addition, Camping World’s webpages render the ’890 Patent obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This is true whether Camping World’s webpages are
treated as a single reference or whether they are combined together as separate
references. There are no patentable or significant differences between the prior art
publications and the chair claimed by the ’890 Patent. The overall similarity is
unmistakable and would be to an ordinary designer. As a result, the claimed chair
is obvious in light of cited prior art.
As set forth in detail below, this Petition shows by a preponderance of
evidence that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail on
invalidating the ’890 Patent based on prior art that anticipates and/or renders
obvious the sole claim of the ’890 Patent. As a result, the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board should: (i) institute a trial in this proceeding, (ii) ultimately find the ’890
Patent is unpatentable, and (iii) cancel the ’890 Patent.
II. NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, ET AL.

A. Real Parties-In-Interest
The real parties-in-interest for this petition include the Petitioner,
MacSports, Inc., and Tofasco of America, Inc.
2
B. Related Matters
Petitioner is not aware of any related matters involving the ’890 Patent.
There is no current or prior litigation between the Petitioner and the Patent Owner,
and there are no other IPRs involving the ’890 Patent.
C. Designation of Counsel
Lead counsel for Petitioner is Ryan W. Koppelman (Reg. No. 58,307).
Back-up counsel for Petitioner is Christopher TL Douglas (Reg. No. 56,950) and
Dana Zottola (Reg. No. 65,942).
D. Service Information
Petitioner consents to electronic service at ryan.koppelman@alston.com,
christopher.douglas@alston.com, and dana.zottola@alston.com. They may also be
contacted at the addresses and phone numbers below:
Lead Counsel
Ryan W. Koppelman
Alston & Bird
1950 University Ave, 5th Floor
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 838-2009
3
Back-up Counsel Back-up Counsel
Christopher TL Douglas Dana Zottola
Alston & Bird Alston & Bird
Bank of America Plaza 1950 University Ave, 5th Floor
101 S. Tryon St., Ste. 4000 East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Charlotte, NC 28280 (650) 838-2044
(704) 444-1119
E. Payment Of Fees
As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.103, Petitioner authorizes the Patent Office to
charge Deposit Account No. 16-0605 for the Petition fee set forth in 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.15(a), and for any additional fees.
F. Grounds for Standing

Petitioner certifies that the ’890 Patent is available for inter partes review
and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes
review challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this petition.
G. Threshold Requirement For Inter Partes Review

A petition for inter partes review must demonstrate “a reasonable likelihood
that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In view of the grounds for
unpatentability explained below, Petitioner submits that this Petition meets the
threshold requirement for initiating an inter partes review.
4
III. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(3)
A. Identification of the Challenged Claim
Per 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1), the Petitioner identifies the sole claim of the
’890 Patent as being challenged by this petition. The single claim of ’890 Patent
claims: “The ornamental design for a foldable club chair, as shown and described.”
Ex. 1001, p. 1. The ’890 Patent describes the figures as follows:
FIG. 1 is a front perspective view of a foldable club chair

in accordance with a preferred embodiment of my new
design;
FIG. 2 is a front elevation view thereof;
FIG. 3 is a rear elevation view thereof;
FIG. 4 is a right side elevation view thereof;
FIG. 5 is a left side elevation view thereof;
FIG. 6 is a top plan view thereof; and,
FIG. 7 is a bottom plan view thereof.
Ex. 1001, p. 1. Figure 1 is representative:
Ex. 1001, FIG. 1.
5
By way of additional background, the ’890 is entitled “Foldable Club Chair”
and was issued on April 5, 2016. Ex. 1001, p. 1. The patent application from
which the ’890 Patent issued was filed on January 8, 2015 and assigned U.S. Patent
Application No. 29/514,110. Ex. 1001, p. 1. The face of the ’890 Patent lists
Benjamin S. Akkad as the sole inventor and lists Idea Nuova, Inc. as the assignee.
Ex. 1001, p. 1.
B. The Specific Statutory Grounds

Per 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2), the Petitioner requests inter partes review of
the sole claim of the ’890 Patent and that it be cancelled based on the following
three grounds of unpatentability:
Ground Description
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the ’890 Patent is anticipated by a printed
1 publication in the form of the CampingWorld.com 360 as a single
reference.
2 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the ’890 Patent is obvious over the
CampingWorld.com Webpages.
3 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the ’890 Patent is obvious over a
combination of the CampingWorld.com 360 and the
CampingWorld.com Webpages.
Petitioner requests inter partes review based on the following prior art that
was not applied by the examiner during prosecution:
6
Exhibit Description Publication Date
1004 CampingWorld.com Webpages January 19, 2013
1006 CampingWorld.com 360 April, 2014
There is no redundancy in this Petition. Each of the above grounds should
be independently instituted because each has at least one strength (and,
correspondingly, therefore, at least one weakness) relative to the other. See Liberty
Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., No. CBM2012-00003, 2016 WL
9494791, at *2 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012). While both the CampingWorld.com 360
and CampingWorld.com Webpages accurately depict Petitioner’s product as
published in a printed publication before the filing date, CampingWorld.com 360 –
relied upon solely in Ground 1 – provides several additional views not available in
the CampingWorld.com Webpages. While the CampingWorld.com Webpages –
relied upon solely in Ground 2 – are significantly older and have some additional
evidentiary support confirming the date of publication. Ground 3 combines the
benefits of Grounds 1 and 2 while minimizing their potential weaknesses.
C. Construction of the Challenged Claim

(1) Legal Standards for Construing a Design Patent
The scope of a design patent is defined by the solid lines depicted in the
drawing of the patent in conjunction with their descriptions. See, e.g., Egyptian
Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 680 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing 37 C.F.R.
7
§ 1.152). “Design patents are typically claimed according to their drawings, and
claim construction must be adapted to a pictorial setting.” Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade
Comm’n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.,
597 F.3d 1288, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “Given the recognized difficulties
entailed in trying to describe a design in words, the preferable course ordinarily
will be . . . not to attempt to ‘construe’ a design patent claim by providing a
detailed verbal description of the claimed design.” Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at
679. But, the Federal Circuit has said that it would be “helpful to point out . . .
various features of the claimed design as they relate to . . . the prior art.” Id. at 680.
When construing a design patent for an article that contains both functional and
ornamental aspects, a patent owner only “is entitled to a design patent whose scope
is limited to [the ornamental] aspects alone and does not extend to any functional
elements of the claimed article.” In an inter partes review, the Board construes
claim terms in an unexpired patent according to their broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the patent specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016).
(2) Construction of the ’890 Patent
Per C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) and consistent with Federal Circuit guidance
about the “difficulties entailed in trying to describe a design in words,” Petitioner
takes the position that no verbal claim construction is necessary for purposes of
8
resolving this straightforward Petition. See Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 679.
The claimed drawings and the prior art images are easily and readily comparable to
the cited prior art through ordinary observation. Also consistent with Federal
Circuit guidance, Petitioner will verbally “point out ... various features of the
claimed design as they relate to ... the prior art,” as part of Petitioner’s comparison
of the patent to the prior art below. See id. at 680.
IV. HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIM IS UNPATENTABLE – 37 C.F.R.

§ 42.104(b)(4)
A. The Legal Standards for Anticipation of a Design Patent
The sole test for determining invalidity of a design patent under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 is the “ordinary observer test.” See Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens
Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In an invalidity analysis, the designs
to be compared are the design as claimed and the prior art reference. Id., at 1240
(citing Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 676); Sensio, Inc. v. Select Brands, Inc., No.
IPR2013-00500, 2014 WL 2507791 at *5 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2014) (confirming
use of the ordinary observer test for anticipation of a design patent by comparing it
to the alleged anticipatory reference).
Applying the “ordinary observer test,” a court should find a design patent
invalid if, “in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser
usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as
to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the
9
other.” Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871); Int’l Seaway, 589
F.3d at 1239; Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne, 256 F.3d 1308, 1313 (Fed. Cir.
2001); Bernhardt LLC v. Collezione Europa U.S., Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 561, 564
(M.D.N.C. 2006) (finding design patent invalid under the ordinary observer test).
This comparison takes into account only significant differences between two
designs; “minor differences cannot prevent a finding of anticipation.” Int’l Seaway,
589 F.3d at 1243 (relying on Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423,
1444 (1984)); Door-Master, 256 F.3d at 1312, 1313; Sensio, 2014 WL 2507791,
*4. Application of the overall visual effect of the designs in question is used to
determine whether the claimed design and prior art are substantially the same to an
ordinary observer. See Crocs, Inc., 598 F.3d at 1303.
The ’890 Patent claim is unpatentable as explained in the following
Grounds.
B. CampingWorld.com 360 Anticipates as a Single Reference

The CampingWorld.com website is a single website with multiple photos
making up a 360 degree view depicting petitioner’s product – XL Outdoor Club
Chair. See Ex. 1004, p. 35 (showing “360 View” icon on the webpage with a url
encoded date stamp of “20140426…”, i.e. April 26, 2014, per Ex. 1003, ¶ 5), p.
61-62 (showing the individual image for the “360 View” icon with a url encoded
date stamp of “20140216…”, i.e. February 16, 2014, per Ex. 1003, ¶ 5), Ex. 1005,
10
pp. 2-3; Ex. 1006. The Board has properly treated multiple webpages as a single
printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). See, e.g., Haliburton Energy Servs.,
Inc. v. Dynamic 3D Geosolutions LLC, No. IPR2014-01186, 2015 WL 5565065, at
*9 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2015); Crestron Elecs., Inc. v. Intuitive Bldg. Controls, Inc.,
No. IPR2015-01379, 2015 WL 13631028, at *10 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2015). The
Board should similarly treat CampingWorld.com 360 as a single publication here.
As the Board correctly decided in Haliburton, when the collection of
webpages “describe a single product, . . ., from a single source,” it constituted a
single printed publication. 2015 WL 5565065 at *10. Here, all of the webpages
describe a single product, XL Outdoor Club Chair, from a single source:
www.campingworld.com. (Ex. 1004, pp. 35, 61; Ex. 1005, pp. 2-3; Ex. 1006.)
Like in Haliburton, persons interested in MacSports’ XL Outdoor Club Chair
would have been interested in reading the CampingWorld.com website pages, all
collected at a single location, to obtain an understanding of a single product. Id.
For example, the ordinary artisans would have been interested in both the general
product listing of the club chair listed on Camping World’s webpage (Ex.1004, pp.
35, 61), and “more images” of the product, as well as the 360 view, which includes
different prospective views of the XL Outdoor Club Chair (Ex. 1004, pp. 35, 61;
Ex. 1006).
11
In fact, the webpages, as a whole, sufficiently describe the inherent aspects
of a single product, the XL Outdoor Club Chair. Haliburton, 2015 WL 5565065 at
*10 (citing In Re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and
Orion IP, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am., 605 F.3d 967, 975 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). The
detailed features of the Club Chair, as well as different prospective views of the
XL Outdoor Club Chair, help an ordinarily skilled artisan understand the product.
See Haliburton, at *10 n.19. Therefore, the CampingWorld.com website as set
forth in the exhibits, which was published well before Jan. 8, 2015, the filing date
of the ’890 Patent, constitutes a single prior art reference, specifically a prior
publication, under Section 102(a). Indeed, the priority of the publication date is
confirmed by combination of percipient witness testimony, image metadata, and
corroborating Internet Archive date stamps of the 360 View icon. See Ex. 1004, p.
35 (showing “360 View” icon on the webpage with a url encoded date stamp of
“20140426…”, i.e., April 26, 2014, per Ex. 1003, ¶ 5), p. 61 (showing the
individual image for the “360 View” icon with a url encoded date stamp of
“20140216…”, i.e. February 16, 2014, per Ex. 1003, ¶ 5), Ex. 1005, pp. 2-3; Ex.
1006.
C. Ground 1. The ’890 Patent Claim is Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C.

§ 102 over CampingWorld.com 360
In the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser
usually gives, the design disclosed by CampingWorld.com 360 is substantially the
12
same as, if not identical to, that claimed in the ’890 Patent, such that the
resemblance would deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one
supposing it to be the other. Accordingly, CampingWorld.com 360 anticipates the
’890 Patent.
(1) The ’890 Patent vs. CampingWorld.com 360: Frame Related
Members
The substantial similarities between CampingWorld.com 360 and the ’890
Patent are evident from a simple comparison of the depictions of frame related
members in CampingWorld.com 360 to the drawings of the ’890 Patent. The ’890
Patent, in the annotated FIGs. 1-5 and 7 below, depicts a foldable club chair having
frame related members. CampingWorld.com 360, in the annotated depictions
below, depicts a foldable club chair having frame related members.
Ex. 1001, FIG. 1 (annotated) Ex. 1006, p. 24 (annotated)
13
14
15
Ex. 1001, FIG. 7 (annotated)
The ’890 Patent, in the annotated FIGs. 1-5 and 7 above, depicts a foldable
club chair having at least four base joints (highlighted in pink). Each of the two
front base joints connects to exactly two leg members, and each of the two rear
base joints connects to exactly three leg members. The front leg members
(highlighted in magenta) cross and connect to each other at a middle joint and
extend up through front folding joints (highlighted in yellow) to partially support a
curved upper support member. Each of the front folding joints has a circle thereon.
A pair of right side diagonal leg members (highlighted in turquoise) cross and
connect to each other at a middle joint denoted by a circle and extend up to the
folding joints (one front folding joint highlighted in yellow and one rear folding
joint highlighted in red). A pair of left side diagonal members (highlighted in
periwinkle) cross and connect to each other at a middle joint denoted by a circle
and extend up to the folding joints (one front folding joint highlighted in yellow
and one rear folding joint highlighted in red). Each one of a pair of rear vertical
16
leg members (highlighted in green) extends from a rear base joint (highlighted in
pink) up through a rear folding joint (highlighted in red) to partially support the
curved upper support member.
CampingWorld.com 360, in the annotated excerpts above, depicts a foldable
17
(2) The ’890 Patent vs. CampingWorld.com 360: Curved Upper Support
Related Members
Patent are further evident from a simple comparison of the depictions of the curved
upper support related members in CampingWorld.com 360 to the drawings of the
’890 Patent. The ’890 Patent, in the annotated FIGs. 2-6 below, depicts a foldable
club chair having curved upper support related members or characteristics.
CampingWorld.com 360, in the annotated excerpts below, depicts a foldable club
chair having curved upper support related members or characteristics.
The curved upper support members of the ’890 Patent include a pair of
features at the front of the chair (highlighted with a blue outline). Each of the
features at the front of the chair has a circle thereon. The curved upper support
18
members of CampingWorld.com 360 include a pair of features at the front of the
chair (highlighted with a blue outline). The features at the front of the chair each
has a circle thereon.
19
The curved upper support members of the ’890 Patent, depicted in Figs. 2-6
(reproduced and annotated above), include fabric panels (highlighted with a red
outline) through which the curved upper support member is threaded such that the
cushion member is attached to the curved upper support member. Two joints
(highlighted with a yellow outline) for aiding in folding the curved upper support
member are situated on either side of a fabric panel at the rear of the foldable chair.
20
Two joints (highlighted with a green outline) connect the rear vertical leg members
to the curved upper support member. Two joints (highlighted in turquoise) are
situated on either side of the curved upper support member to aid in folding the
curved upper support member. The curved upper support member is exposed
between the various design characteristics, as referenced with orange arrows.
The curved upper support members of the CampingWorld.com 360 images,
reproduced and annotated above, include fabric panels (highlighted with a red
(3) The ’890 Patent vs. CampingWorld.com 360: Cushion Member
Patent are further evident from a simple comparison of the depictions of the
cushion member in CampingWorld.com 360 to the drawings of the ’890 Patent.
21
The ’890 Patent, in the annotated FIGs. 2-5 and 7 below, depicts a foldable club
chair having a cushion member. CampingWorld.com 360 depicts a foldable club
chair having a cushion member.
The ’890 Patent depicts a cushion member having a back portion (referenced
by a pink arrow) and a bottom portion (referenced by a yellow arrow). The
cushion member further includes side portions (referenced by turquoise arrows).
CampingWorld.com 360 depicts a cushion member having a back portion
(referenced by a pink arrow) and a bottom portion (referenced by a yellow arrow).
The cushion member further includes side portions (referenced by turquoise
arrows).
The cushion member of the ’890 Patent includes two straps (referenced by
orange arrows) at the rear bottom of the cushion member for attaching the cushion
member to the rear vertical leg members. The cushion member of
CampingWorld.com 360 includes two straps (referenced by orange arrows) at the
22
rear bottom of the cushion member for attaching the cushion member to the rear
vertical leg members.
The cushion member of the ’890 Patent includes indentations in the back
portion, bottom portion, and side portions. The cushion member of
CampingWorld.com 360 includes indentations in the back portion, bottom portion,
and side portions that are identical to those of the ’890 Patent.
23
The cushion member of the ’890 Patent includes a section (referenced by a
blue arrow) extending above the curved upper support member and related
members. The cushion member of CampingWorld.com 360 includes a section
(referenced by a blue arrow) extending above the curved upper support member
and related members.
24
Accordingly, applying the ordinary observer test, the design claimed in the
’890 Patent is substantially identical to the design disclosed by
CampingWorld.com 360. Specifically, CampingWorld.com 360 discloses each and
every identifiable feature depicted in the figures of the ’890 Patent as explained
above.
Therefore, the resemblance between the two designs is so great as to deceive
an ordinary observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other.
Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871); Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v.
Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Door-Master Corp. v.
Yorktowne, 256 F.3d 1308, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Bernhardt LLC v. Collezione
Europa U.S., Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 561, 564 (M.D.N.C. 2006).
Minor differences between the disclosure of CampingWorld.com 360 and
the ’890 Patent cannot prevent a finding of anticipation. Int’l Seaway, 589 F.3d at
1243 (relying on Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423, 1444 (1984));
Door-Master, 256 F.3d at 1312, 1313; Sensio, 2014 WL 2507791, at *4.
Because in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a
purchaser usually gives, the CampingWorld.com 360 and ’890 Patent designs are
substantially the same, the ’890 Patent is anticipated by CampingWorld.com 360.
25
D. Legal Standards for Obviousness of a Design Patent
“Section 103 applies to design patents in much the same manner as it applies
to utility patents.” In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations
omitted); In re Borden, 90 F.3d 1570, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citations omitted)
(“Design patents are subject to the same conditions on patentability as utility
patents, including the nonobviousness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 103”). If the
claimed design as a whole is substantially the same, or has the same overall visual
appearance, as the prior art, the patented design is obvious. See MRC Innovations,
Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP, 747 F.3d 1326, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2014); High Point Design
LLC v. Buyer’s Direct, Inc., 730 F.3d 1301, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Apple, Inc. v.
Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd., 678 F.3d 1314, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Durling v.
Spectrum Furniture Co., 101 F.3d 100, 103 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
The first step in an obviousness inquiry is to identify in a single reference
design characteristics which are “basically the same” as the claimed design. MRC
Innovations, 747 F.3d at 1331; High Point Design, 730 F.3d at 1311 (internal
quotation and citations omitted). “[O]nce this primary reference is found, other
references may be used to modify it to create a design that has the same overall
visual appearance as the claimed design.” High Point Design, 730 F.3d at 1311
(internal quotation and citations omitted). The secondary references may only be
used to modify the primary reference if they are so related to the primary reference
26
that the appearance of certain ornamental features in one would suggest the
application of those features to the other. Apple, Inc., 678 F.3d at 1329-1330
(quotations and internal citations omitted). When a secondary reference is “so
related” to the primary reference, the similarity in appearance among them is
enough to motivate a designer of ordinary skill to combine features from one with
features from the other, to create a hypothetical reference. Id. at 1334-35; High
Point Design, 730 F.3d at 1315.
Once a hypothetical prior art reference has been created by combining the
primary and secondary references, the hypothetical reference must be compared
with the claimed design through the eyes of a designer of ordinary skill to
determine if a design patent is invalid for obviousness. See MRC Innovations, 747
F.3d at 1331; High Point Design, 730 F.3d at 1313. As with a reference for
anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the similarity of the overall design for
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is what is important; small differences are
irrelevant. See MRC Innovations, 747 F.3d at 1335 (finding insubstantial and
obvious the addition of an ornamental surge stitching on top of a garment’s
existing seam, where no prior art had exactly the same stitching as the claimed
design).
27
E. The Designer of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Based on the prior art in the prosecution history (Ex. 1002) and cited in this
Petition (Exs. 1003-1006), the types of problems encountered in the art and the
prior art solutions to those problems are evident. See In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573,
1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (listing potentially relevant factors for level of skill). The
prior art record generally indicates that the designer of ordinary skill in the art
would be someone with a background or familiarity with furniture design and
particularly foldable chairs. The prior art record further reflects that this is not a
highly sophisticated area of design or related technology. The prior art record also
reflects that the designer of ordinary skill would not need to be familiar with
advanced mechanical technology, as the relevant field of prior art is limited to the
ornamental aspects of relatively simple consumer commodity chairs. But see
Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the absence of
specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error
‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is
not shown.’”); see also Chore-Time Equip., Inc. v. Cumberland Corp., 713 F.2d
774 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
F. Ground 2. The ’890 Patent Claim is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C.

§ 103 over CampingWorld.com Webpages
In the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser
usually gives, the design disclosed by CampingWorld.com Webpages is
28
substantially the same as, if not identical to, that claimed in the ’890Patent, such
that the resemblance would deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase
one supposing it to be the other. Ex. 1004, pp. 32-33 (showing the individual
image for with a url encoded date stamp of “20130119…,” i.e. January 19, 2013,
per Ex. 1003, ¶ 5). Indeed, the CampinWorld.com should be treated as single
reference for all the reasons explained above, and in particular pages 32 and 33 of
Exhibit 1004 should be treated as one reference for purposes of obviousness here.
See, e.g., Haliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. Dynamic 3D Geosolutions LLC, No.
IPR2014-01186, 2015 WL 5565065, at *9 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2015); Crestron
Elecs., Inc. v. Intuitive Bldg. Controls, Inc., No. IPR2015-01379, 2015 WL
13631028, at *10 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2015). Accordingly, the CampingWorld.com
Webpages render obvious the ’890 Patent.
To the extent that there are any differences between the CampingWorld.com
Webpages and the design of the ’890 Patent, the CampingWorld.com Webpages
discloses the same overall visual impression as the claimed design of the ’890
Patent. Any differences are de minimis and not sufficient to justify a finding that
the design is patentable. In re Lamb, 286 F.2d 610, 611 (Cust. & Pat. App. Feb. 6,
1961). As a result, the claim is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
the CampingWorld.com Webpages as explained below.
29
The CampingWorld.com Webpages disclose a foldable club chair with
“basically the same” design characteristics as the claimed design, and any
differences are de minimis. Durling, 101 F.3d at 103. Because the
CampingWorld.com Webpages are so similar to the design claimed in the ’890
Patent, no secondary reference is necessary.
(1) The ’890 Patent vs. CampingWorld.com Webpages: Frame Related
Members
The substantial similarities between the CampingWorld.com Webpages and
the ’890 Patent are evident from a simple comparison of the depictions of frame
related members in the CampingWorld.com Webpages to the drawings of the ’890
Patent. The ’890 Patent, in the annotated FIGs. 1-5 and 7 below, depicts a foldable
club chair having frame related members. The CampingWorld.com Webpages, in
the annotated depictions below, depicts a foldable club chair having frame related
members.
30
Ex. 1001, FIG. 3 (annotated) Ex. 1001, FIG. 4 (annotated)
31
The ’890 Patent, in the annotated FIGs. 1-5 and 7 above, depicts a foldable
32
The CampingWorld.com Webpages, in the annotated excerpts above, depicts
a foldable club chair having at least four base joints (highlighted in pink). Each of
the two front base joints connects to exactly two leg members, and each of the two
rear base joints connects to exactly three leg members. The front leg members
33
(2) The ’890 Patent vs. CampingWorld.com Webpages: Curved Upper
Support Related Members
the ’890 Patent are further evident from a simple comparison of the depictions of
the curved upper support related members in the CampingWorld.com Webpages to
the drawings of the ’890 Patent. The ’890 Patent, in the annotated FIGs. 2-6
below, depicts a foldable club chair having curved upper support related members
or characteristics. The CampingWorld.com Webpages, in the annotated excerpts
below, depicts a foldable club chair having curved upper support related members
or characteristics.
34
The curved upper support members of the ’890 Patent include a pair of
features at the front of the chair (highlighted with a blue outline). Each of the
features at the front of the chair has a circle thereon. The curved upper support
members of the CampingWorld.com Webpages include a pair of features at the
front of the chair (highlighted with a blue outline). The features at the front of the
chair each has a circle thereon.
35
The curved upper support members of the ’890 Patent, depicted in Figs. 2-6
(reproduced and annotated above), include fabric panels (highlighted with a red
36
These features are show by the side view annotated in red and green on
Exhibit 1004 p. 32. It can only be seen from the side, but the patent figures merely
replicate the pattern around the chair. It would have been obvious to continue the
same pattern around the chair even if it is not literally depicted in Exhibit 1004 p.
32 or 33. In any event, the overall design remains virtually identical and any such
minor differences are not sufficient to give rise to patentability over the cited
references. See MRC Innovations, 747 F.3d at 1335 (emphasizing the similarity of
the overall design for obviousness and minimizing as irrelevant small differences
for purposes of an obviousness analysis of a design patent).
(3) The ’890 Patent vs. CampingWorld.com Webpages: Cushion Member
the ’890 Patent are further evident from a simple comparison of the depictions of
the cushion member in the CampingWorld.com Webpages to the drawings of the
’890 Patent. The ’890 Patent, in the annotated FIGs. 2-5 and 7 below, depicts a
37
foldable club chair having a cushion member. The CampingWorld.com Webpages
depict a foldable club chair having a cushion member.
The ’890 Patent depicts a cushion member having a back portion (referenced
by a pink arrow) and a bottom portion (referenced by a yellow arrow). The
cushion member further includes side portions (referenced by turquoise arrows).
The CampingWorld.com Webpages depict a cushion member having a back
portion (referenced by a pink arrow) and a bottom portion (referenced by a yellow
arrow). The cushion member further includes side portions (referenced by
turquoise arrows).
The cushion member of the ’890 Patent includes two straps (referenced by
orange arrows) at the rear bottom of the cushion member for attaching the cushion
member to the rear vertical leg members. The cushion member of the
CampingWorld.com Webpages includes two straps (referenced by orange arrows)
38
at the rear bottom of the cushion member for attaching the cushion member to the
rear vertical leg members.
The cushion member of the ’890 Patent includes indentations in the back
portion, bottom portion, and side portions. The cushion member of the
CampingWorld.com Webpages includes indentations in the back portion, bottom
portion, and side portions that are identical to those of the ’890 Patent.
39
The cushion member of the ’890 Patent includes a section (referenced by a
blue arrow) extending above the curved upper support member and related
members. The cushion member of the CampingWorld.com Webpages includes a
section (referenced by a blue arrow) extending above the curved upper support
member and related members.
Again, these features are show by the side view annotated in red and green
on Exhibit 1004 p. 32. It can only be seen from the side, but the patent figures
merely replicate the pattern around the chair. It would have been obvious to
continue the same pattern around the chair even if it is not literally depicted in
Exhibit 1004 p. 32 or 33. In any event, the overall design remains virtually
identical and any such minor differences are not sufficient to give rise to
40
patentability over the cited references. See MRC Innovations, 747 F.3d at 1335
(emphasizing the similarity of the overall design for obviousness and minimizing
as irrelevant small differences for purposes of an obviousness analysis of a design
patent).
G. Ground 3. The ’890 Patent Claim is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C.

§ 103 Over the Combination of CampingWorld.com 360 and
CampingWorld.com Webpages
To the extent that CampingWorld.com 360 is not accepted as single
anticipatory reference or that the CampingWorld.com Webpages do not disclose or
render obvious any design characteristics found in the ’890 Patent, then it would be
obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art to combine CampingWorld.com
360 and the CampingWorld.com Webpages to include all of the depictions of both
references into a single hypothetical reference. The motivation to combine is
demonstrated by the fact that the references are from the same website and depict
the exact same product with the exact same product number. Ex. 1005, pp. 2-3 at
¶¶ 4-5; Ex. 1004, pp. 25, 32-33, 35, 61-62. They are in fact merely different
pictures of the exact same product on the same website, and the law allows for
these references to be considered a single reference under such circumstances. See,
e.g., Haliburton Energy Servs., 2015 WL 5565065, at *9 ; Crestron Elecs, 2015
WL 13631028, at *10.
41
Furthermore, the earliest Internet Archive capture of Petitioner’s chair goes
back to December of 2010 with customer comments about purchases dated April
2010. Ex. 1004, pp. 67-68. That Internet Archive capture from 2010 only includes
a single front view of the chair, but it is evident it is the same chair as the later
captures in 2013 and 2014. Ex. 1005, pp. 2-3 at ¶¶ 4-5; Ex. 1006; Ex. 1004, pp. 32-
33, 61-62. The 2010 capture is the same color and also has the same “Catalog item
#42645.” Having been sold on the market for almost 5 years before the Patent
Owner filed for its patent further indicates how obvious it would have been for a
reasonable designer to combine these references, pictures of the same product to
create the design claimed in the ’890 Patent. This was not some new design at the
time of filing. It was wholly derivative and obvious in view of Petitioner’s long
existing design.
Having combined the references, comparing the hypothetical reference to
the claimed design of the ’890 Patent through the eyes of a designer of ordinary
skill shows that the ’890 Patent is obvious. As shown above through the series of
annotated depictions of CampingWorld.com 360 and the CampingWorld.com
Webpages, a hypothetical reference of a combination of CampingWorld.com 360
and the CampingWorld.com Webpages teaches all claimed features of the ’890
Patent.
42
Therefore, considering the CampingWorld.com 360 and the
CampingWorld.com Webpages, a designer of ordinary skill who designs articles of
the type involved would find that the claimed ’890 Patent design as a whole is
substantially the same or has the same overall visual appearance as the design of
CampingWorld.com 360 or the CampingWorld.com Webpages, alone or in
combination. Accordingly, the design claimed in the ’890 Patent is obvious under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over CampingWorld.com 360 and the CampingWorld.com
Webpages.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that Trial be
instituted and that the ’890 Patent claim be cancelled.
Dated: May 2, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
/Ryan W. Koppelman/
Ryan W. Koppelman (Reg. No. 58307)
Christopher TL Douglas (Reg. No. 56,950)
Dana Zottola (Reg. No. 65,942).
Attorneys for Petitioner
43
VI. CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24, the undersigned attorney for the Petitioner
declares that this Petition (Sections I-V) has a total of 7,172 words, according to
the word count tool in Microsoft Word™.
/Ryan W. Koppelman/
Attorney for Petitioner
44
VII. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq. and 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(b), the
undersigned hereby certifies that, on May 2, 2018, a true and complete copy of this
petition for inter partes review and all supporting exhibits (1001 – 1006) were
provided by UPS, cost prepaid, to the Patent Owner by serving the correspondence
address of record as follows:
PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP

Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street, Suite 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
/Ryan W. Koppelman/
Attorney for Petitioner
45

MacSports v. Idea Nuova - Petition For IPR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MacSports v. Idea Nuova - Petition For IPR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.S. Design Patent No.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

U.S. Design Patent No. D752,890

Inter Partes Review No. IPR2018-01006

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW

II. NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, ET AL.................................................2

C. Designation of Counsel .........................................................................3

E. Payment Of Fees ...................................................................................4

F. Grounds for Standing ............................................................................4

G. Threshold Requirement For Inter Partes Review.................................4

III. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(3)........5

A. Identification of the Challenged Claim .................................................5

B. The Specific Statutory Grounds ............................................................6

C. Construction of the Challenged Claim..................................................7

(1) Legal Standards for Construing a Design Patent........................7

(2) Construction of the ’890 Patent ..................................................8

IV. HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIM IS UNPATENTABLE – 37

A. The Legal Standards for Anticipation of a Design Patent ....................9

B. CampingWorld.com 360 Anticipates as a Single Reference ..............10

C. Ground 1. The ’890 Patent Claim is Anticipated Under 35

(2) The ’890 Patent vs. CampingWorld.com 360: Curved

(3) The ’890 Patent vs. CampingWorld.com 360: Cushion

D. Legal Standards for Obviousness of a Design Patent .........................26

E. The Designer of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..........................................28

F. Ground 2. The ’890 Patent Claim is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C.

(1) The ’890 Patent vs. CampingWorld.com Webpages:

(2) The ’890 Patent vs. CampingWorld.com Webpages:

(3) The ’890 Patent vs. CampingWorld.com Webpages:

G. Ground 3. The ’890 Patent Claim is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C.

VI. CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ...........................................................44

VII. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE......................................................................45

In Re Baxter Travenol Labs,

Bernhardt LLC v. Collezione Europa U.S., Inc.,

Chore-Time Equip., Inc. v. Cumberland Corp.,

Crestron Elecs., Inc. v. Intuitive Bldg. Controls, Inc.,

Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,

Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,

Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne,

Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co.,

Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.,

Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White,

Haliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. Dynamic 3D Geosolutions LLC,

High Point Design LLC v. Buyer’s Direct, Inc.,

Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp.,

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,

Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp.,

MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP,

Orion IP, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am.,

Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.,

Sensio, Inc. v. Select Brands, Inc.,

35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .....................................................................................................4

37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .........................................................................................................2

37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................8

37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .....................................................................................................4

37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ....................................................................................5, 6, 8, 9

Ex. 1002 – U.S. Design Patent No. D752,890 File History

Ex. 1003 – Internet Archive Affidavit of Christopher Butler

Ex. 1004 – Exhibit A to Affidavit of Christopher Butler: Webpage Images from

Ex. 1005 – Declaration of Jeffrey Geisler

Chair from CampingWorld.com (“CampingWorld.com 360”)

pre-existing chairs on Camping World’s e-commerce website back to 2010. The

Internet Archive periodically crawled campingworld.com, captured, auto date-