PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is one active AIA trial proceeding on US Patent D768969. The status is "Trial Instituted," meaning the PTAB has determined there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, and the case is proceeding to a full trial. This provides a defendant with a strong defensive posture, as the patent's validity is currently under scrutiny and may be narrowed or entirely invalidated.

IPR2025-01395 — TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v. Cole Haan LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-09
• Status: Trial Instituted — The PTAB has decided to proceed with a full review of the challenged patent claims.
• Judge panel: Before JOHN A. SQUIRES, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims and prior art relied upon in the petition are not detailed in the provided search results. However, the petition challenged the obviousness of the design patent under the changed legal standard established by LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, 102 F.4th 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
• Institution decision: Instituted — on 2026-01-12. The Director denied a request for discretionary denial, finding that a "significant change in law" regarding the obviousness standard for design patents (referencing LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC) counseled against discretionary denial, despite the patent owner's settled expectations. The Director explained that because the framework under which the challenged patent was examined and issued was abrogated, the merits of the obviousness challenge should be considered, even though the patent was issued 10 years ago.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued, as the case is in the trial phase. PTAB has a statutory 1-year deadline from institution to issue a Final Written Decision, placing the anticipated FWD date around January 2027.
• Settlement / termination: Not settled; the proceeding is active.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as a Final Written Decision has not yet been issued.
• Defensive value: This active IPR proceeding is significant for a defendant. The institution of trial, particularly due to a recent change in design patent obviousness law, indicates a strong challenge to the patent's validity. If the IPR results in claims being canceled, any infringement theory built upon those claims will be significantly weakened or eliminated.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of D768969 are UNTESTED by a Final Written Decision. The sole active IPR, IPR2025-01395, has been instituted based on a challenge to the obviousness of the design patent under the Federal Circuit's LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC decision. This is a critical development, as the Director explicitly acknowledged that the LKQ decision "fundamentally changed the obviousness standard for design patents" and that the patent was examined and issued under an abrogated standard. This suggests a potentially high likelihood of at least some claims being found unpatentable.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since no Final Written Decision has been issued, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not yet apply. This means that if a defendant is currently being asserted against, they are not yet barred from raising any prior-art grounds that were or could have been raised in IPR2025-01395. However, if the petitioner in IPR2025-01395 is the same entity as the defendant or in privity with them, they would be estopped upon the issuance of a Final Written Decision from raising grounds they raised or reasonably could have raised. The fact that Top Glory Trading Group Inc. is also a defendant in a district court case brought by Cole Haan LLC involving the '969 patent, according to the provided information, implies that such a privity relationship is likely, and the estoppel provisions will be highly relevant upon the IPR's conclusion.

The initiation of this IPR, particularly considering the patent was issued approximately 10 years ago, and the Director's decision to institute despite "settled expectations" arguments, signals a more receptive posture by the PTAB toward post-grant challenges for design patents in light of the LKQ decision.

Recommended next steps

As IPR2025-01395 is actively pending, a defendant facing assertion of D768969 should closely monitor this proceeding. The PTAB has a statutory deadline of one year from institution to issue a Final Written Decision (FWD), which means an FWD is anticipated around January 2027. Key milestones to watch for include any expert discovery, oral hearing, and the issuance of the FWD.

The Director's informative decision to institute the IPR in light of LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC is a crucial development, as it directly addresses a significant change in the legal standard for design patent obviousness. The full text of this informative decision (IPR2025-01395, Paper 18, issued 2026-01-12) should be carefully reviewed for the specific claims being challenged and the detailed reasoning for institution. This decision is publicly available through the USPTO PTAB Decisions search function.

If the defendant is the same entity as, or in privity with, Top Glory Trading Group Inc. and DP Dream Pairs Inc., they should be aware of the potential estoppel implications once a Final Written Decision is issued. They should carefully evaluate all prior art and arguments to ensure that any grounds they might wish to raise in district court or future PTAB proceedings are not inadvertently barred by estoppel from this IPR.