US 10443163

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 10443163:

Title: Shoe having knit wingtip upper

Assignee: Cole Haan LLC

Inventors: Jack Boys, Ann Bono, Aubert Shepherd, Mattias Verfl

Filing Date: May 13, 2019

Issue Date: October 15, 2019

Abstract: A shoe includes a knit upper and a sole secured to the upper. The knit upper has a wingtip pattern knit into the knit upper.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (Apparatus Claim - Shoe): This claim describes a shoe with a knit upper and a sole. The key feature is the knit upper being a unitary one-piece construction with various seamlessly knitted regions (heel, midfoot, metatarsal, ball, and toe regions). It further specifies that a wingtip pattern is incorporated into the knitted element, and this pattern includes a boundary line formed by two different types of knit structures. This boundary line has converging wing-shaped curved medial and lateral portions.

• Claim 13 (Apparatus Claim - Shoe): Similar to Claim 1, this claim also describes a shoe with a knit upper and a sole. However, it focuses on the knitted element comprising a knitted upper metatarsal region, lateral and medial ball regions, and a toe region. Like Claim 1, it emphasizes the unitary one-piece construction and seamlessly knitted regions, with a wingtip pattern comprising a boundary line made of two different knit structures, where the medial and lateral boundary lines are wing-shaped and curved, with rearwardly converging central portions. This claim appears to be a slightly narrower version of Claim 1 by omitting the heel and midfoot regions from the main list of knitted elements, though they are still implicitly part of an upper.

• Claim 18 (Method Claim - Manufacturing an Upper): This claim outlines a method for manufacturing a shoe upper. The core of the method is knitting with a knitting machine to form a unitary one-piece knitted element. This knitted element includes seamlessly integrated heel, midfoot, metatarsal, ball, and toe regions. A wingtip pattern, defined by a boundary line between two different knit structures, is seamlessly knitted into the element, with the boundary line having converging wing-shaped medial and lateral portions. The first and second knit areas and the wingtip pattern are all seamlessly knitted during the knitting step.

• Claim 21 (Method Claim - Manufacturing an Article of Footwear): This claim details a method for manufacturing an entire article of footwear (shoe with upper and sole). It involves the same knitting process as Claim 18 for creating the unitary one-piece knit upper with seamlessly integrated regions. Specifically, it states that the first knit area is a jersey stitch knit, and the second area is a pointelle stitch knit. The first area is at least in the upper toe region, and the second area is at least in the upper lateral and medial metatarsal regions, with a defined boundary line. After knitting the upper, the method includes attaching the sole to the upper.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
A search of CAFC 2026 dockets did not return any specific case information related to patent US10443163.

As of April 26, 2026, there is known litigation involving US patent 10443163.

Here's a summary of the known cases:

1. PTAB Case IPR2025-01393

• Plaintiff(s): TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP, INC., DP DREAM PAIRS, INC., and MIRACLE MILES GROUP, INC.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated, but typically the patent owner (Cole Haan LLC).
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• Case Number: IPR2025-01393.
• Filing Date: September 3, 2025 (Effective date of filing).
• Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.

2. US Case filed in New Jersey District Court

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets.
• Jurisdiction: New Jersey District Court.
• Case Number: 2:25-cv-00176.
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but the case number suggests 2025.
• Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is active.

3. US Case filed in Illinois Northern District Court

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets.
• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court.
• Case Number: 1:25-cv-01327.
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but the case number suggests 2025.
• Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is active.

Proceedings overview

There is 1 AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 10443163, which is currently in "Discretionary Denial" status. This indicates that the PTAB declined to institute the review, leaving all claims of the patent intact and potentially strengthening the patent owner's position against future challenges.

IPR2025-01393 — TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v. Cole Haan LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-03
• Status: Discretionary Denial - The PTAB declined to institute the Inter Partes Review, meaning the trial did not proceed to a full merits review.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available at this stage.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available due to discretionary denial; however, patent IPRs typically challenge claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103.
• Institution decision: Denied (date not explicitly stated in the provided data, but "last modified 2026-02-10" and "status: Discretionary Denial" suggest the denial occurred by this date). The panel's reasoning for discretionary denial is not provided in the prompt but would typically involve factors such as parallel district court litigation, advanced stage of litigation, or inefficient use of PTAB resources.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial of IPR2025-01393 means that all claims of US10443163 remain unchallenged through this particular PTAB proceeding. This result makes an IPR-based defense against this patent potentially harder, as the patent owner successfully fended off an initial challenge.

Strategic summary

All claims of US10443163 are currently SUSTAINED and UNTESTED at the merits stage of an AIA trial. The single IPR filed, IPR2025-01393, was denied institution through a discretionary denial. This outcome means no claims were invalidated, and the patent's claims remain as issued.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since IPR2025-01393 was denied institution, the statutory estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) generally do not apply to the petitioner (TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al.) or their privies for grounds that were not actually instituted. However, the Board's reasoning for discretionary denial can sometimes provide insight into the perceived strength or weakness of the petition's arguments, which might influence future challenges. The specific prior art grounds raised in the petition are not publicly available in this overview.

The discretionary denial of the sole IPR signals a strengthened position for the patent owner, Cole Haan LLC, as the patent has withstood an initial challenge at the institution phase. There is no indication of a pattern of multiple IPRs from the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner based on the provided data. The petitioner, TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al., is not explicitly identified as a defensive aggregator in the provided information.

Recommended next steps

The status of IPR2025-01393 as "Discretionary Denial" means the patent's claims were not challenged on the merits. If you are a defendant facing assertion of this patent, it would be crucial to:

• Obtain the full institution decision for IPR2025-01393 to understand the PTAB's specific reasoning for the discretionary denial. This decision might reveal weaknesses in the petitioner's arguments or procedural issues that led to the denial, which could inform future defense strategies.
• Conduct a thorough prior art search to identify any new or unconsidered art that could form the basis for a new IPR petition, addressing any deficiencies highlighted in the denial of IPR2025-01393.
• Given the absence of any instituted IPRs, consider the possibility of filing a new IPR petition with robust grounds, particularly if novel and highly pertinent prior art can be identified.

Inventors

• Jack Boys (Cole Haan LLC)
• Ann Bono (Cole Haan LLC)
• Aubert Shepherd (Cole Haan LLC)
• Mattias Verfl (Cole Haan LLC)

Original assignee

The original assignee, Cole Haan LLC, is a global lifestyle brand selling shoes, bags, coats, and accessories. They ship products embodying the claims, specifically shoes with knit uppers and wingtip patterns. Cole Haan LLC is currently an operating company.

Assignment timeline

• 2019-05-13 (executed) / recorded 2019-05-13 — Reel 049154/0937

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: BOYS, JACK; BONO, ANN; SHEPHERD, AUBERT; VERFL, MATTIAS
  • Assignee: COLE HAAN LLC
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP; 1000 WESTLAKE PLAZA, 1200 WESTLAKES DRIVE, SUITE 300, BERWYN, PENNSYLVANIA, UNITED STATES, 19312
  • Context: Original assignment from inventors to operating company.

• 2020-06-30 (executed) / recorded 2020-07-01 — Reel 053100/0028

  • Conveyance: Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignor: COLE HAAN LLC
  • Assignee: ALTER DOMUS (US) LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Correspondent: WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.; 600 ATLANTIC AVENUE, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, UNITED STATES, 02210
  • Context: Securitization agreement.

• 2020-09-14 (executed) / recorded 2020-09-14 — Reel 053770/0204

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: COLE HAAN LLC
  • Assignee: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
  • Correspondent: JOHN R. WOO; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., NC1-007-06-05, 214 N. TRYON STREET, CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA, UNITED STATES, 28255
  • Context: Securitization agreement.

• 2023-08-15 (executed) / recorded 2023-08-15 — Reel 064599/0780

  • Conveyance: Release By Secured Party
  • Assignor: ALTER DOMUS (US) LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Assignee: COLE HAAN LLC
  • Correspondent: MAYER BROWN LLP; P.O. BOX 2828, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, UNITED STATES, 60690
  • Context: Release of prior security interest.

• 2023-08-15 (executed) / recorded 2023-08-15 — Reel 064599/0077

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: COLE HAAN LLC
  • Assignee: ACQUIOM AGENCY SERVICES LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Correspondent: MAYER BROWN LLP; P.O. BOX 2828, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, UNITED STATES, 60690. This correspondent also appears on reel 064599/0780.
  • Context: New securitization agreement.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10443163
    2019 : Inventors to Cole Haan LLC
    2020 : Securitization: Alter Domus
         : Securitization: Bank of America
    2023 : Release: Alter Domus
         : Securitization: Acquiom Agency Services

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The patent remains with the original operating company, Cole Haan LLC, or has been part of securitization agreements with financial entities acting as collateral agents.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. None of the assignees (Cole Haan LLC, Alter Domus (US) LLC, Bank of America, N.A., Acquiom Agency Services LLC) are identified as known patent asserters.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. While Mayer Brown LLP appears twice on the same recording date for related security interest events (reels 064599/0780 and 064599/0077), this is not a recurrence across different types of conveyance or a broader chain of assignments that would indicate an NPE pattern.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. The transfers involve security agreements and releases, not multiple consecutive assignments of ownership through chained LLCs.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While there is litigation associated with this patent (IPR2025-01393, US case 2:25-cv-00176, US case 1:25-cv-01327), the security agreements are part of financing arrangements, and not direct transfers of ownership to an asserting entity immediately prior to litigation. The earliest litigation mentioned is 2025, which is more than six months after the last recorded assignment event in 2023.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication that Cole Haan LLC has filed for bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — not present. No evidence in the assignment records or legal events suggests privateering.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent is not currently assigned to any known defensive aggregators.

Verdict

Insufficient data. The assignment records primarily show the patent remaining with the original operating company, Cole Haan LLC, with several security agreements and their corresponding releases. There are no clear signals of a transfer to a shell entity or a known patent asserter. While litigation is noted, the assignment activity does not directly precede it in a manner indicative of pre-litigation transfer to an NPE. Further investigation into the nature of the listed litigation would be required to determine if it is an operating-company assertion or involves an NPE.

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

The USPTO provides a Patent Public Search tool to search its database of patents and patent application publications.

Here is an analysis of the prior art cited in US patent 10443163, identifying the most relevant references and their potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The current date is April 26, 2026.

Cited Patent References

1. US2312078A

• Full Citation: US2312078A - Shoe upper.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: February 23, 1943; Priority/Filing: October 9, 1940.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a shoe upper construction. It focuses on using a "vamp" of knitted material, which is drawn over a last and attached to a sole. The knitting is performed to conform to the shape of the foot.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent potentially anticipates claims related to a knitted upper and its formation, specifically regarding the general concept of using a knitted element for a shoe upper. Claims 1, 13, 18, and 21, which broadly describe a shoe with a knit upper formed of a unitary one-piece construction, could be partially anticipated by the general idea of a knitted vamp. However, the specific features of the wingtip pattern, different knit structures, and seamless knitting of distinct regions with specific broguing, as detailed in US10443163, are not explicitly present in US2312078A.

2. USD293386S

• Full Citation: USD293386S - Shoe upper.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: December 29, 1987; Priority/Filing: April 4, 1986.
• Brief Description: This is a design patent for a shoe upper. Design patents primarily protect the ornamental design of an article.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): As a design patent, USD293386S is less likely to anticipate the functional and structural claims of US10443163. It may show a general aesthetic for a shoe upper, but it would not disclose the specific unitary one-piece knit construction, seamless regions, different knit structures, or wingtip pattern with broguing as claimed in US10443163.

3. USD394739S

• Full Citation: USD394739S - Shoe upper.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: June 2, 1998; Priority/Filing: April 15, 1997.
• Brief Description: This is a design patent for a shoe upper.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to USD293386S, this design patent would not anticipate the technical and structural claims of US10443163 regarding the knit construction, seamless integration, differing knit structures, or the specific wingtip and broguing features.

4. USD401398S

• Full Citation: USD401398S - Shoe upper.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: November 24, 1998; Priority/Filing: October 28, 1997.
• Brief Description: This is another design patent for a shoe upper.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Again, as a design patent, USD401398S would not anticipate the functional or structural aspects of the knit wingtip upper described and claimed in US10443163.

5. US6910288B2

• Full Citation: US6910288B2 - Footwear incorporating a textile with fusible filaments and fibers.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: June 28, 2005; Priority/Filing: December 18, 2002.
• Brief Description: This patent describes footwear that uses textiles incorporating fusible filaments and fibers, which can be melted to bond components together. It focuses on the materials and their bonding properties in footwear manufacturing.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent could potentially anticipate aspects of claims 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 25, and 26 of US10443163 related to the use of hot melt yarn in the knitted element and the process of applying heat to affix the yarns. While it describes the use of fusible materials in footwear, it does not explicitly disclose the unitary one-piece knit upper, seamless regions, different knit structures (jersey, pointelle), or the specific wingtip pattern with broguing as a knitted feature of US10443163.

6. US7347011B2

• Full Citation: US7347011B2 - Article of footwear having a textile upper.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: March 25, 2008; Priority/Filing: March 3, 2004.
• Brief Description: This patent describes an article of footwear with a textile upper, focusing on regions of varying flexibility and support within the textile.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US7347011B2 might anticipate the general concept of a textile upper with varying properties, which could broadly relate to the "first area of a first type of knit structure and a second area of a second type of knit structure" mentioned in claims 1, 13, 18, and 21. However, it does not specifically disclose a knit upper of unitary one-piece construction with seamlessly knitted regions or the wingtip pattern with broguing formed by different knit types, as detailed in US10443163.

7. US20120255201A1

• Full Citation: US20120255201A1 - Seamless upper for footwear and method for making the same.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: October 11, 2012; Priority/Filing: April 8, 2011.
• Brief Description: This application describes a seamless upper for footwear and a method for making it. It focuses on creating a seamless construction to enhance comfort and fit.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference is highly relevant as it explicitly discusses a "seamless upper for footwear" and methods of making it. This directly relates to the "unitary one-piece construction" and "seamlessly knitted" regions described in claims 1, 13, 18, and 21 of US10443163. The novelty of US10443163 over this reference would likely hinge on the specific details of the seamless construction, such as the wingtip pattern, the line of broguing formed by holes during knitting, and the specific differentiation of knit structures (e.g., jersey and pointelle) that define the wingtip pattern. If US20120255201A1 does not disclose these specific design and structural elements within its seamless upper, US10443163 may retain novelty.

8. KR101367445B1

• Full Citation: KR101367445B1 - Upper of shoes.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: February 25, 2014; Priority/Filing: July 10, 2013.
• Brief Description: This Korean patent describes an upper for shoes. (Further details of its specific technical features would require a more in-depth analysis of the patent document itself.)
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Without the full translated text and figures, it's difficult to determine the exact scope of anticipation. However, if it discloses a knit upper or seamless construction, it could broadly relate to the independent claims. The specific wingtip pattern, broguing, and differentiation of knit structures as claimed in US10443163 would be key to distinguishing it from this reference.

9. US20140310985A1

• Full Citation: US20140310985A1 - Shoe adapted to the shape of the foot.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: October 23, 2014; Priority/Filing: April 19, 2013.
• Brief Description: This application describes a shoe adapted to the shape of the foot, likely involving flexible or conforming upper materials.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This could broadly relate to the conforming nature of a knit upper. However, like other general textile or upper patents, it is unlikely to specifically anticipate the detailed knit structures, seamless integration of specific regions, wingtip pattern, and knitted broguing features that define US10443163's claims.

10. US20150342285A1

• Full Citation: US20150342285A1 - Method Of Making An Article Of Footwear Including Knitting A Knitted Component Of Warp Knit Construction Forming A Seamless Bootie With Tucked-In Portion.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: December 3, 2015; Priority/Filing: May 30, 2014.
• Brief Description: This application describes a method of making footwear that includes knitting a warp knit component to form a seamless bootie.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference is also highly relevant due to its explicit mention of "knitting a knitted component" to form a "seamless bootie." This directly addresses the "unitary one-piece construction" and "seamlessly knitted" aspects of claims 1, 13, 18, and 21. The distinction for US10443163 would again lie in the specific details of the knitted design: the wingtip pattern, the line of broguing formed during knitting, and the specific use of different knit structures (e.g., jersey and pointelle) to define that pattern. If this reference does not disclose these specific elements, then US10443163 could still be novel. The distinction between warp knit (in this reference) and potentially weft knit (common for full-fashioned uppers, though not explicitly limited in 10443163's claims, but generally inferred from "knitting machine" for a unitary upper) could also be a point of differentiation.

Most Relevant Prior Art

Based on the descriptions, the most relevant prior art references for US patent 10443163 appear to be:

• US20120255201A1 (Seamless upper for footwear and method for making the same): This patent application directly addresses the core concept of a seamless upper and methods for making it, which is central to claims 1, 13, 18, and 21 of US10443163. The key differentiator for US10443163 would be the specific ornamental and structural features of the "knit wingtip upper" (i.e., the wingtip pattern, broguing, and distinct knit structures forming these patterns, all integrated during the knitting process) not present in US20120255201A1.
• US20150342285A1 (Method Of Making An Article Of Footwear Including Knitting A Knitted Component Of Warp Knit Construction Forming A Seamless Bootie With Tucked-In Portion): Similar to US20120255201A1, this reference also describes knitting a seamless component for footwear. The analysis for anticipation and novelty would follow the same lines, focusing on the specific "wingtip pattern" and "broguing" features, along with the detailed description of different knit structures defining these patterns, as claimed in US10443163. The type of knit (warp vs. potentially weft) could also be a distinguishing factor.
• US6910288B2 (Footwear incorporating a textile with fusible filaments and fibers): This patent is highly relevant for claims 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 25, and 26, which relate to the use of hot melt yarn in the knitted upper and the heating process. If US10443163's claims for the material composition and heat-setting process are not sufficiently distinct from this reference, it could face anticipation challenges for those specific aspects.

The design patents (USD293386S, USD394739S, USD401398S) are generally less relevant for anticipating the functional and structural aspects of US10443163's utility claims, as they protect ornamental design rather than technical features. The remaining references (US2312078A, US7347011B2, KR101367445B1, US20140310985A1) provide broader context on knitted uppers and textile footwear but lack the specific detailed features that define the novelty of US10443163.

To analyze the obviousness of US patent 10443163 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we must consider whether the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA). This analysis involves four factual inquiries: (1) determining the scope and content of the prior art; (2) ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention; (3) resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) considering secondary indicia of non-obviousness. The Supreme Court's decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. emphasized a flexible "common sense" approach, noting that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious if a POSA could implement a predictable variation. A rejection based on obviousness requires articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning, not just conclusory statements.

Legal Framework for Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103):

A patent cannot be obtained if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This determination does not consider the manner in which the invention was made (e.g., "flash of genius" vs. long toil). The prior art includes patents or publications available to the public before the patent's filing date.

Scope and Content of Prior Art for US10443163:

The patent itself lists several "Prior art keywords," including "knitted," "region," "medial," "lateral," and "broguing." It also specifically cites a number of patent documents in its "Citations" section. For the purpose of this analysis, we will consider the "Patent Citations" section from the provided patent text as the primary source of relevant prior art, along with general knowledge in the field of footwear and textile manufacturing at the time of the invention (July 8, 2016 priority date).

The relevant prior art documents cited in US10443163 include:

• US2312078A: Shoe upper
• USD293386S: Shoe upper
• USD394739S: Shoe upper
• USD401398S: Shoe upper
• US6910288B2: Footwear incorporating a textile with fusible filaments and fibers
• US7347011B2: Article of footwear having a textile upper
• US20120255201A1: Seamless upper for footwear and method for making the same
• KR101367445B1: Upper of shoes
• US20140310985A1: Shoe adapted to the shape of the foot
• US20150342285A1: Method Of Making An Article Of Footwear Including Knitting A Knitted Component Of Warp Knit Construction Forming A Seamless Bootie With Tucked-In Portion

Differences Between Claimed Invention and Prior Art (and Combinations for Obviousness):

The independent claims of US10443163 (Claims 1, 13, 18, and 21) focus on a shoe with a knit upper of unitary one-piece construction, seamlessly knitted regions (heel, midfoot, metatarsal, ball, toe), and a wingtip pattern that is knit into the upper. The wingtip pattern is defined by a boundary line between two different knit structures, which themselves have specific stitch types (e.g., jersey and pointelle). Some claims also specify that broguing (holes) are formed during the knitting process and are adjacent to this boundary line.

A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) in footwear and textile manufacturing at the time of the invention (July 8, 2016) would likely be familiar with various knitting techniques, shoe upper constructions, and traditional shoe ornamentation.

Here's an analysis of potential obviousness combinations:

Combination 1: Seamless Knit Upper + Wingtip Pattern + Different Knit Structures

• Starting Point: US20120255201A1 (Dashamerica, Inc.) discloses a "seamless upper for footwear and method for making the same." This reference teaches forming a footwear upper as a unitary, one-piece knitted component. Similarly, US20140310985A1 (Adidas Ag) describes a "shoe adapted to the shape of the foot," likely involving knitted uppers for fit. US7347011B2 (Nike, Inc.) also discusses "Article of footwear having a textile upper," which could encompass knitted uppers. These references establish the general concept of seamless knitted shoe uppers.
• Adding Wingtip Pattern: Wingtip patterns are a well-known, traditional decorative feature in footwear, typically involving cut and stitched leather pieces. The innovation in US10443163 is knitting this pattern into the unitary upper. A POSA would be aware of traditional wingtip patterns.
• Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine a seamless knitted upper with a wingtip pattern would stem from a desire to blend traditional aesthetic appeal with the comfort, reduced waste, and manufacturing efficiency offered by seamless knitting technology. A POSA, faced with the need to create a more stylish or formal knitted shoe, would naturally consider incorporating existing decorative elements.
• Adding Different Knit Structures for the Pattern: US10443163 specifies that the wingtip pattern is defined by a boundary line between a first and second type of knit structure (e.g., jersey and pointelle). US6910288B2 (Nike, Inc.) discloses "Footwear incorporating a textile with fusible filaments and fibers," and US7347011B2 (Nike, Inc.) mentions a "textile upper." A POSA would understand that different knit structures can be incorporated into a single knitted element to achieve varying aesthetics, textures, and functional properties (e.g., breathability, support). Given the aesthetic nature of a wingtip pattern, a POSA would be motivated to use different knit structures to visually define the pattern, especially since a seamless knit construction inherently limits the use of traditional cut-and-stitch methods. Using different knit structures to create visual differentiation is a routine design choice in knitting.

Obviousness Argument: A POSA, seeking to create a visually appealing knitted shoe upper that mimics traditional styles while retaining the benefits of seamless knitting, would find it obvious to integrate a wingtip pattern. The idea of using different knit structures (like jersey and pointelle, both common knit types) to delineate this pattern within a single knitted piece would be a straightforward design choice to achieve the desired aesthetic without resorting to separate material pieces. The references disclosing seamless knit uppers (e.g., US20120255201A1) provide the foundational technology for a unitary knitted element, and general knowledge of knitting techniques would suggest using different stitch types for patterned effects.

Combination 2: Incorporating Knitted Broguing (Holes) into the Wingtip Pattern

• Starting Point: Building on Combination 1, where a seamless knit upper incorporates a wingtip pattern defined by different knit structures.
• Adding Broguing: The claims of US10443163 also include "broguing" (lines of holes) that are knitted into the upper and are adjacent to the boundary line of the wingtip pattern. Broguing is a traditional decorative feature of wingtip shoes.
• Motivation to Combine: A POSA designing a knitted wingtip shoe would be motivated to replicate the full aesthetic of a traditional wingtip, which includes broguing. Knowing how to create holes or openwork patterns using knitting techniques (e.g., pointelle stitch is mentioned in the patent as a knit type for the second area, and pointelle inherently creates small holes or eyelets) would lead a POSA to incorporate these features directly into the knit. The patent itself highlights that the holes are "in the knitting element via the knitting process as opposed to being formed by removal of material such as by cutting or punching." This suggests a known knitting capability. The desire to fully emulate the classic wingtip look through knitting would provide the motivation to include knitted broguing.

Obviousness Argument: Given existing seamless knit upper technology (e.g., US20120255201A1) and the common knowledge of creating various patterns and textures, including openwork, through knitting, it would be obvious for a POSA to implement a traditional wingtip pattern with knitted broguing. The use of different knit structures, such as a pointelle stitch (which naturally creates holes), near the "boundary line" of the wingtip pattern would be a predictable application of known knitting techniques to achieve a desired aesthetic result.

The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art:

A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) for this patent would likely possess a bachelor's degree in textile engineering, materials science, or a related field, along with several years of experience in the design and manufacturing of footwear, particularly with an emphasis on knitted textiles. They would be familiar with various knitting machines (e.g., CNC knitting machines), yarn types, and different knit structures (e.g., jersey, pointelle). They would also understand traditional footwear construction and decorative elements.

Secondary Considerations (if present):

The provided patent text and summary do not explicitly detail any secondary considerations of non-obviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt need, failure of others, unexpected results, or copying. Such evidence, if available, would need to be evaluated as part of a complete obviousness analysis. However, based solely on the provided text, no such evidence is presented to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.

Conclusion:

Based on the available prior art, particularly references disclosing seamless knit uppers and the general knowledge within the textile and footwear industries regarding knitting techniques and traditional shoe designs, a strong argument for obviousness could be made for the claims of US10443163. A person of ordinary skill in the art would likely have been motivated to combine the known concept of seamless knitted shoe uppers with the traditional wingtip aesthetic and its associated features (like broguing and distinct material regions) by utilizing different, known knit structures to define these elements within a single, integrally knitted component. The desire to marry classic style with the manufacturing and comfort advantages of seamless knit technology would provide the motivation for such combinations.

I'll research the specific term and family data for US 10,443,163.

Let me verify the PTA and expiration specifics from primary sources.

Let me attempt to confirm the front-page term notice for the '163 patent.

Term, Continuation, and Family Analysis — US 10,443,163 B2

Scope note: I searched for the exact identifier 10443163 (US 10,443,163 B2). All data below ties to that patent number only; no similar-numbered records (e.g., US 10,327,511, US 11,041,262, USD905386) are substituted for it, although they are discussed only as related family members, which is necessary to establish the § 120 benefit chain.

1. Bibliographic anchor (confirmed)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10443163/en and https://www.justia.com/patent/10443163 (patents.justia.com/patent/10443163)

2. Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)

Not directly verified from a USPTO document in this session — stated with confidence levels below.

What the public record shows: The Google Patents legal-status event line for US 10,443,163 states:

2036-07-08 — Anticipated expiration

(seen in the fetched record at https://patents.google.com/patent/US10443163/en)

That date is exactly twenty years from 2016-07-08, the earliest application for which benefit is claimed under § 120 — i.e., no days were added for PTO delay. This is consistent with a PTA of 0 days.

Why 0 days is the expected result on the law and the timeline (high confidence):

1. Term measurement. Under 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2), because app. 16/409,970 contains a specific reference under § 120 to an earlier U.S. application, the term runs 20 years from the earliest such application's filing date (2016-07-08), not from the 2019-05-13 continuation filing date. See MPEP 2701 ("A patent granted on a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application… will have a term which ends twenty years from the filing date of earliest application for which a benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120…"): https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/old/E8R0_2700.pdf
2. A-delay (37 CFR 1.703(a)(1)) cannot accrue: the Rule measures from the day after 14 months after the actual filing date (2019-05-13 → 2020-07-14). The patent issued 2019-10-15, ~155 days after filing — well inside 14 months.
3. B-delay (37 CFR 1.703(b)) cannot accrue: the three-year clock runs from the actual filing date (2022-05-14 vs. issuance 2019-10-15).
4. C-delay (appeal/interference/secrecy order): none of record.
5. 37 CFR 1.704(c)(14) ("Further prosecution via a continuing application") requires that the adjustment "shall not include any period that is prior to the actual filing date of the application that resulted in the patent" — so none of the parent's ~2-year, 11-month pendency is creditable to the continuation.

Confidence: High that PTA = 0 days. I could not open the granted patent's front-page notice line ("…extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by ___ days") in this session, so I am inferring from (a) the Google Patents anticipated-expiration value and (b) the statutory/regulatory timeline. To verify conclusively, retrieve the front page or the PTA determination from USPTO Patent Public Search (https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/) or Patent Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/).

PTA reconsideration / litigation of PTA: No request for reconsideration, no PTA-related district court action, and no PTA-affected reexamination found for US 10,443,163.

Contradiction to flag

Third-party aggregator patents-review.com lists for this family "Adjusted expiration: 2039-05-13" (https://www.patents-review.com/a/20190261741-shoe-knit-wingtip-upper.html). This conflicts with the authoritative rule and with the Google record. 2039-05-13 is 20 years from the continuation's own filing date, which ignores the § 120 benefit claim to the 2016-07-08 parent. Under § 154(a)(2)/MPEP 2701, an earlier date (2036-07-08) governs. Treat the 2039-05-13 figure as an aggregator computation error unless a USPTO document shows otherwise.

3. Patent Term Extension (PTE) under 35 U.S.C. § 156

None, and none legally available. PTE under § 156 is limited to patents claiming a product subject to a regulatory review period (e.g., FDA approval of a drug, biologic, device, or food/color additive), as described in the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984. A knit shoe upper is not such a product, and no terminal disclaimer/PTE certificates appear in the file history. Accordingly:

• PTE: not applicable / 0 days. (Framework reference: https://www.manatt.com/insights/newsletters/intellectual-property-law/double-trouble-for-double-patenting-or-when-does-m)

4. Continuation / Divisional Applications

4.1 Benefit chain (US family)

Divisionals: None identified. There is no indication of a restriction requirement and no divisional filing (no separate "Div." application number) in the family. The family consists of continuations (§ 120) plus one design application.

Corresponding pre-grant publications: US 2018/0008006 A1 (from 15/205,672); US 2019/0261741 A1 (from 16/409,970); US 2020/0008528 A1 (from 16/577,697).

4.2 ⚠️ Discrepancy inside the patent's own text (flag, per instruction not to auto-correct)

The '163 specification's Cross-Reference section reads:

"This is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/205,672, filed Jul. 8, 2016…"

Taken literally, application 14/205,672 is a 2014-series number and cannot have been filed on July 8, 2016. The record identifies the actual parent as 15/205,672 (filed 2016-07-08 → US 10,327,511 B2). Google Patents lists US 15/205,672 as the Related Parent. I am not correcting the number; I am reporting that the patent text and the Office/family records are inconsistent, and that a COPY OF the 14/205,672 string should be verified in the file wrapper before it is relied upon in any validity or priority dispute (a § 120 benefit defect argument is a routine attack vector).

5. Related Family Members (worldwide)

Family ID: 60892751. Note that the WO member is recorded as ceased, while the EP and CN members remain live/in force — relevant if you are mapping geographical coverage beyond the U.S.

6. Projected Expiration Dates

On the parent's date: 2036-09-29 is exactly 83 days after 2036-07-08, which implies the parent US 10,327,511 carries 83 days of PTA. I did not verify that figure in a USPTO document — it is reverse-engineered from the Google Patents family table. Verify before relying on it.

Strategic consequence (the Cellect point): Because US 10,443,163 is a § 120 continuation with 0 days PTA, it expires earlier (2036-07-08) than its own parent (2036-09-29). This is the inverse of the In re Cellect fact pattern (Fed. Cir. 2023, Nos. 2022-1293–1296), where later-issued continuations outlived their earlier-issued relatives because of PTA and were invalidated for obviousness-type double patenting. Here, the child dying first against the parent removes the ODP attack that would otherwise arise from PTA-driven term divergence, and it also explains why no terminal disclaimer appears in the record. (Framework: https://www.manatt.com/insights/newsletters/intellectual-property-law/double-trouble-for-double-patenting-or-when-does-m)

7. Maintenance Fees (term-integrity check)

• 4th year (3.5-yr) fee — PAID 2023-03-22, large entity (event code MAFP, M1551). Window was ~2023-04-15.
• 7.5-year fee — due ~2027-04-15 (6-month grace to ~2027-10-15). Not yet paid; no payment event of record as of the data retrieved.
• 11.5-year fee — due ~2031-04-15.

All three must be paid to reach the full 2036-07-08 term.

8. Post-Grant Proceedings Affecting Term — none

• IPR2025-01393 (Petitioners: TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP, INC.; DP DREAM PAIRS, INC.; MIRACLE MILES GROUP, INC.), filed 2025-09-03, was denied institution (discretionary denial). This has no effect on patent term or expiration; it simply leaves all 28 claims intact as issued.
• No reissue, reexamination, certificate of correction affecting term, or disclaimer under § 253 found for US 10,443,163.
• Corresponding district court matters: D.N.J. 2:25-cv-00176 and N.D. Ill. 1:25-cv-01327 (plaintiff Cole Haan LLC, per third-party reporting; law firm Thompson Coburn LLP). Asserted patent numbers in the Illinois action reportedly include 10,327,511; 10,443,163; 11,041,262; and several design patents, confirming the family is being enforced as a group.

9. Bottom Line

1. PTA: 0 days (high confidence; not independently confirmed from a USPTO front page in this session).
2. PTE: 0 / not applicable (§ 156 is limited to FDA-regulated products).
3. Continuations: two § 120 continuations in the chain (parent 15/205,672 → this patent 16/409,970 → sibling 16/577,697) plus a design application (29/725,113). No divisionals.
4. Family: WO 2018/009368 A1 (ceased), EP 3481245 A1/A4 (pending), CN 208573113 U (active), USD905386S1 (active), US 10,327,511 / 10,443,163 / 11,041,262.
5. Projected expiration of US 10,443,163: 2036-07-08 (contingent on the 7.5- and 11.5-year maintenance fees).
6. Two data conflicts flagged: (a) the patent's own text cites parent "14/205,672" while the record shows 15/205,672; (b) patents-review.com's "adjusted expiration 2039-05-13" appears to ignore the § 120 benefit claim and should not be relied upon.