`
`Paper No. 25
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TARGET CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`DESTINATION MATERNITY CORPORATION
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00531
`
`Patent RE43,563
`
`Dated: May 5, 2014
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO AMEND
`
`CLAIM 1 OF US. PATENT NO. RE43,563
`
`EAST\75345661.6
`
`Target Corporation Exhibit 1118
`
`Target v. DMC
`|PR2013-00530, 531, 532, 533
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... l
`
`II.
`
`CLAIM LISTING ........................................................................................... 1
`
`III.
`
`GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE AlVIENDMENTS ................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`The Amendments Are Supported By the Original Disclosure and
`Do Not Add New Matter ...................................................................... 3
`
`IV.
`
`AlVIENDED CLAIM 1 IS PATENTABLE .................................................... 5
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Amended claim 1 is Patentable Over JCP-A and Asada ..................... 6
`
`Amended claim 1 IS Patentable Over Browder ................................. 11
`
`Amended Claim 1 is Not Obvious ..................................................... 12
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. l 5
`
`Target Corporation Exhibit 1118
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001:
`
`Hendrickson et al. US. Patent No. RE43,563 (“the ’563 Patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1002:
`
`.].C. Penney ontrendMaternity Catalog, dated Fall/Winter 2005,
`cover and pages 15 and 19 (“JCP”)
`
`Exhibit 1004:
`
`US. Patent No. 6,276,175 to Browder (“Browder”)
`
`Exhibit 1029:
`
`PTAB Decision for IPR2013-00531 dated February 14, 2014
`
`Exhibit 1031:
`
`PTAB Decision for IPR2013-00532 dated February 19, 2014
`
`Exhibit 1034:
`
`Japanese Utility Model Patent No. 3,086,624 to Asada
`
`Exhibit 103 5:
`
`Petitioner’s Certified Translation of Asada
`
`Exhibit 2019:
`
`Deposition transcript of Amy Brady (October 10, 2013)
`
`Exhibit 2020:
`
`Exhibit 114 from deposition transcript of Amy Brady
`
`Exhibit 2021
`
`July 17, 2007 Patent Owner press release - introduction to Secret
`Fit Belly styles
`
`Exhibit 2022:
`
`Declaration of Phil Green
`
`Exhibit 2026:
`
`Declaration of David Brookstein, Sc.D. in Support of Patent
`Owner’s Motion in the Alternative to Amend Claim 1 of US.
`
`Patent No. RE43,563
`
`Exhibit 3002:
`
`October 10, 2013 Deposition of Mindy Simon
`
`EAST\75345661.6
`
`Target Corporation Exhibit 1118
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Destination Maternity Corporation (“Patent Owner”) moves in
`
`the alternative to amend claim 1 of US. Reissue Patent RE43,5 63 (“RE’563”) under
`
`35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 316(a)(9) and 37 CPR.
`
`§ 42.121. Patent Owner provides a
`
`“claim-by-claim approach to specifying the contingency of substitution” as required
`
`by Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom Ina, IPR2012-OOO27, Paper 26 (June 11,
`
`2013) at 10. If the Board determines that claim 1 is unpatentable over the prior art at
`
`issue in this trial, Patent Owner moves to amend claim 1. Idle Free at 4-5.
`
`II. CLAIM LISTING
`
`1.
`
`(Currently amended) A garment portion having an attached belly
`
`panel portion comprising:
`
`an expansible belly panel adapted to [[substantially]] cover a
`
`wearer's entire belly region, said belly region comprising an area
`
`beginning just beneath the wearer's breast area and extending over the
`
`wearer's abdomen to a lower abdomen region beneath the wearer's
`
`belly, said belly panel comprising:
`
`an upper edge portion defining a first encircling
`
`circumference about [[a]] th_e wearer's torso that is at or above the
`
`wearer's upper abdomen region during all stages of pregnancy, and
`
`a lower edge portion spaced from the upper edge portion
`
`and defining a second encircling circumference about the wearer's
`
`lower abdomen region;
`
`and
`
`EAST\75345661.6
`
`Target Corporation Exhibit 1118
`
`
`
`a garment lower portion, in communication with the lower edge
`
`portion, having a torso encircling circumference that
`
`recedes
`
`downward to make way for expansion of the belly panel.
`
`III. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE AMENDMENTS.
`
`Patent Owner proposes two substantive amendments1 to Claim 1
`
`in the
`
`alternative, in the event that the Board finds claim 1 of RE’S 63 anticipated by JCP-A
`
`(EX. 1002), Asada (Exs. 1034, 1035), and/or Browder (EX. 1004).
`
`The first substantive amendment further avoids anticipation by JCP-A and
`
`Asada by claiming an expansible belly panel that covers a wearer’s torso from an
`
`area from just beneath the breast area to the lower abdomen:
`
`an expansible belly panel adapted to [[substantially]] cover a wearer’s
`
`entire belly region, said belly region comprising an area beginning just
`
`beneath the wearer’s breast area
`
`This addresses the Board’s comment that claim 1 requires the belly region, but not
`
`necessarily the belly panel, to begin “just beneath the wearer’s breast area.” See
`
`PTAB Feb. 14, 2014 Dec. Paper 10 at 7. By eliminating the modifier “substantially,”
`
`the expansible belly panel more clearly recites coverage of the entire belly region.
`
`The second substantive amendment further avoids anticipation by JCP-A,
`
`Asada, and Browder by specifically claiming that the upper edge of the garment’s
`
`1
`
`.
`.
`Patent Owner also replaces “a” With “the” before “wearer's torso that is at or above
`
`the wearer's upper abdomen region” to clarify the claim.
`
`EAST\75345661.6
`
`I
`I
`I
`Target Corporatlon Exhlblt 1118
`
`
`
`belly panel is located just beneath the breast area during all stages of pregnancy:
`
`an upper edge portion defining a first encircling circumference about
`
`[[a]] th_e wearer’s torso that is at or above the wearer’s upper abdomen
`
`region during all stages of pregnancy
`
`A. THE AMENDMENTS ARE SUPPORTED BY THE ORIGINAL
`
`DISCLOSURE AND DO NOT ADD NEW MATTER.
`
`A motion to amend claims must identify clearly the written description
`
`support for each proposed substitute claim. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b)(1). The written
`
`description test is whether the original disclosure of the application relied upon
`
`reasonably conveys to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art (“POSA”) that the
`
`inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Ariad
`
`Pharms., Inc. v. EliLl'lly & C0., 598 F.3d1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane); Idle
`
`Free at 8 (patent owner bears the burden of showing “written description support in
`
`the original disclosure of the patent”) The proposed amendments must not introduce
`
`new matter. Idle Free at 8. Patent owners must also provide constructions for any
`
`new claim terms they introduce. Id at 7.
`
`I. ”[[substantially]] cover a wearer’s entire belly region ”
`
`Amended claim 1 is nearly identical to claim 1 as issued in the ‘563 Patent.
`
`Neither the Board nor the PTO has ever taken issue with the written description
`
`support of reissued claim 1. Given the modest nature of the proposed narrowing
`
`changes, the amended claim is likewise fully supported by the specification. The
`
`EAST\75345661.6
`
`I
`I
`I
`Target Corporatlon Exhlblt 1118
`
`
`
`RE’563 patent specification describes the claimed invention as a comfortable,
`
`non-constricting garment that is expansible to cover and fit over a wearer’s entire
`
`belly region during different stages of pregnancy and different stages of weight
`
`gains and/or losses, and actually stays up when worn. E. g., RE ’563 Patent, col.1,
`
`1.50-61, col. 2,1.6-11, col. 3, 1.1-5,1.23-31, Fig. 1A.
`
`Here, when the modifier “substantially” is removed from the claim, the claim
`
`element is narrowed to more clearly be construed as “an expansible belly panel that
`
`entirely covers a wearer’s belly from beneath the location of the breasts by a very
`
`small margin to a lower abdomen region beneath the wearer's belly.” Removing
`
`“substantially” narrows the claim. Brookstein Decl., EX. 2026, W 24. Cf. Ex parte
`
`Neuwirtlz, 229 USPQ 71, 73 (Bd.Pat.App. & Int. 1985) (addition of the word
`
`“substantially” during reexamination as a modifier for “rounded bottom wall”
`
`broadened the scope of the claim in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 305); Seattle Box Co. v.
`
`Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc, 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed.Cir.1984)
`
`(applicants’ addition of the term “substantially equal to” during reissue broadened
`
`the scope of the claims.)
`
`2. ”during all stages ofpregnancy ”
`
`Claim 1 as issued (and reissued) did not expressly claim a maternity garment.
`
`The second substantive claim amendment specifies that the claim is directed to
`
`maternity wear that is wearable for all stages of pregnancy:
`
`EAST\75345661.6
`
`I
`I
`I
`Target Corporatlon Exhlblt 1118
`
`
`
`an upper edge portion defining a first encircling circumference about
`
`[[a]] th_e wearer’s torso that is at or above the wearer’s upper abdomen
`
`region during all stages of pregnancy
`
`This amendment injects one of the initial aspects recited in the disclosure, and
`
`is therefore fully supported by the original disclosure. E. g. , RE’563 Patent, col. 1, 1.
`
`51-57, col. 3, 1.1-5 and 1.36-67. Patent Owner’s amendment to include “during all
`
`stages of pregnancy” narrows the scope of the claim as required by Idle Free. The
`
`term “during all stages of pregnancy” should be construed as “throughout an entire
`
`pregnancy.” Bookstein Decl., EX. 2026, 1] 26.
`
`IV. AMENDED CLAIM 1 IS PATENTABLE
`
`Patent owners who seek to amend their claims in an inter partes reView
`
`proceeding must show the amended claims are patentably distinct over the prior art.
`
`Idle Free at 6-7. Patent owners must make a “specific technical disclosure of the
`
`closest prior art known to the patent owner” and explain why such art does not
`
`render obVious the proposed substitute claims. Id. at 7.
`
`The closest prior art references Patent Owner is presently aware of that relate
`
`to the proposed amended claim 1 of the ’563 patent are: (1) pages 15 and 19 of .].C.
`
`Penney ontrendMaternity Catalog, dated Fall/Winter 2005 (“JCP-A”); (2) Japanese
`
`Utility Model Patent No. 3,086,624 to Asada (“Asada”); and (3) US. Patent No.
`
`EAST\75345661.6
`
`I
`I
`I
`Target Corporatlon Exhlblt 1118
`
`
`
`6,276,175 to Browder (“Browder”)2. The Board has preliminarily found both JCP-A
`
`and Browder are reasonably likely to anticipate original claim 1 of the ’5 63 patent.
`
`Asada was identified by Petitioner Target Corporation (“Petitioner”) as an alleged
`
`anticipatory reference in a subsequent request for inter partes review3. Given the
`
`similarities in the JCP-A and Asada disclosures, they will be discussed together.
`
`A. AMENDED CLAIM 1 IS PATENTABLE OVER JCP-A AND
`
`ASADA.
`
`To anticipate a claim under § 102, “a single prior art reference [must] ‘not
`
`only disclose all of the elements of the claim within the four comers of the
`
`document, but
`
`also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.’“ Cheese
`
`Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese andPowa’er Sys., Inc., 725 F3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2013). If even one element is missing, there is no anticipation. MPEP § 2131.
`
`I . JCP-A and Asaa’a do not disclose belly panels that “cover a
`wearer’s entire belly region .
`.
`. beginningjust beneath the
`breast area and extending. .
`. beneath the wearer’s belly. ”
`
`Patent Owner proposes amending claim 1
`
`to remove the modifier
`
`“substantially” to more clearly require a belly panel that extends “just beneath the
`
`wearer’s breast area” to cover “a wearer’s entire belly region.” Amended claim 1
`
`more definitively requires a belly panel that begins beneath the location of the
`
`2See Brookstein Decl., EX. 2026, 11 36.
`
`3 IPR2014-00508, Paper No. 1.
`
`EAST\75345661.6
`
`I
`I
`I
`Target Corporation Exhlblt 1118
`
`
`
`breasts by a very small margin, which neither JCP-A nor Asada disclose.
`
`JCP-A and Asada do not disclose this feature because, at a minimum, JCP-A
`
`does not show either the model’s breast area or even the top of the belly.
`
`Specifically, in JCP-A’s disclosure, the pregnant belly continues upward outside the
`
`picture frame to an unknown point, and the top of the garment curves downward
`
`substantially, providing incomplete coverage even to the portion of the belly region
`
`shown in these photographs. Thus, JCP-A does not disclose a belly panel “adapted
`
`to cover a wearer’s entire belly region” by extending to “just beneath the wearer’s
`
`breast area,” as required by the amended claim. See also Brookstein Decl., EX. 2026
`
`at W 5 0-5 7 .
`
`Like JCP-A, Asada is directed to a maternity garment with a belly panel that
`
`encircles a wearer’s abdomen. Asada, EX. 1035 at Fig. 2. And just like JCP-A,
`
`Asada’s belly panel does not cover the entire belly area by extending up to the
`
`wearer’s breast area. The figures in Asada do not show either the breast area or even
`
`the top of the belly. See id. at Fig. 2. Moreover, the prior art maternity garments
`
`compared in Asada as terminating at the same uppermost point of Asada are fastened
`
`around the waist, and therefore rise only as high as the conventional maternity
`
`garments available before the RE’563 Patent. See id. at 2 (“Fig 3 is a view the
`
`maternity pants shown in Fig. l overlapping conventional maternity pants shown in
`
`Fig. 4”), id. at [0001 1] (“Unlike conventional maternity pants that are tightened only
`
`EAST\75345661.6
`
`Target Corporation Exhibit 1118
`
`
`
`at a waist rubber c portion, these fulfill a role of fastening at the waist with the entire
`
`abdomen-covering portion 2, so they can be worn comfortably without being tight.
`
`Also, they have a protective effect because they cover the entire waist portion”).
`
`Asada also conspicuously lacks any disclosure of the breast area. Just as with
`
`JCP-A, Asada cannot anticipate claim 1 without disclosing coverage to the breast
`
`area or even the top of the belly. See Brookstein Decl., EX. 2026 W 70, 65-67.
`
`In addition, the lexicography of JCP-A’s “over-the-belly” and Asada’s “entire
`
`abdomen-covering portion” terms, and variants thereof, do not change JCP—A and
`
`Asada into anticipatory references. JCP-A uses “over-the-belly” to refer to a belly
`
`panel that sits on the belly rather than extending up to the wearer’s breast area.
`
`Brookstein Decl., EX. 2026 at W 38, 55 . Similarly, the “abdomen-covering portion”
`
`of Asada refers to a stretch-knit belly panel. E. g. , Asada, EX. 1035 at [0011], Fig. l.
`
`The “entire abdomen-covering portion” refers to this belly panel in its unfolded
`
`configuration, positioned at the waist identical to the height of prior art garments and
`
`sitting on the belly as depicted in Asada Fig. 2(c). E. g, id. (“Unlike conventional
`
`maternity pants that are tightened only at a waist rubber c portion, these fulfill a role
`
`of fastening at the waist with the entire abdomen-covering portion 2. .
`
`. ), see also
`
`Brookstein Decl., EX. 2026 at W 41, 65.
`
`Because neither JCP-A nor Asada disclose belly panels that cover a wearer’s
`
`entire belly region by extending up to just beneath the wearers breast area, claim 1 is
`
`EAST\75345661.6
`
`I
`I
`I
`Target Corporatlon Exhlblt 1118
`
`
`
`patentable as amended over these references.
`
`2. JCP-A and Asada do not disclose a belly panel with “an upper edge
`portion .
`.
`. that is above the wearer’s upper abdomen region during all
`stages ofpregnancy. ”
`
`The proposed amendment of claim 1 of the RE’563 Patent emphasizes that the
`
`“upper edge portion” of the claimed belly panel is located beneath the location of the
`
`breasts by a very small margin throughout pregnancy. E. g., Brookstein Decl., EX.
`
`2026, 1111 23-24. In stark contrast, the belly panels of JCP-A and Asada must be
`
`folded down in the early stages of pregnancy to hold their respective garments in
`
`place. E.g., id at 1111 56, 66.
`
`Asada discloses that the garment must be folded down in early stages of
`
`pregnancy and post-partum. See Asada, EX. 1035 at [0012] (“In other words, as
`
`shown in Fig. 2(a), this can be worn by shortening the above-the-crotch portion by
`
`folding the abdomen-covering portion 2 during the early stage of pregnancy or at
`
`post-partum”);
`
`id.
`
`[0013] (“As shown in Fig. 2(b), during the pregnancy,
`
`the
`
`above-the-crotch portion elongates pursuant to a gradual reduction in an amount that
`
`the abdomen-covering portion 2 is folded to fit the abdominal portion which
`
`gradually grows larger, Furthermore, at a later period of the pregnancy near full
`
`term,
`
`it can be worn completely to envelop the abdomen with the entire
`
`abdomen-covering portion 2 as shown in Fig. 2(c)”); id. [0014] (“Also, with the state
`
`shown in Fig. 2(c) from the later stages of the pregnancy to full term, the larger
`
`EAST\75345661.6
`
`I
`I
`I
`Target Corporatlon Exhlblt 1118
`
`
`
`abdomen is supported and fitted with the entire abdomen-covering portion 2 so it
`
`can be worn comfortably without feeling tight”); id. [0015] (“Also, pursuant to the
`
`present invention, the abdomen-covering portion 2 that covers the entire abdomen at
`
`full term is composed of a stretch knit, so it does not need an unnecessary width like
`
`a conventional article”).
`
`By requiring the “fold-over” feature to hold the garment up and in place at
`
`earlier stages of pregnancy and post-partum, Asada necessarily does not and cannot
`
`cover the entire abdomen during those stages, and instead must eXpose more of the
`
`wearer’s abdomen during earlier stages of pregnancy and post-partum. Thus, Asada
`
`does not disclose claim l’s patented garment that covers the entire abdomen during
`
`all stages of pregnancy.
`
`Similarly, the garments disclosed in JCP-A do not have an upper edge portion
`
`that encircles the wearer’s torso at or above the wearer’s upper abdomen region
`
`during a_ll stages of pregnancy. Brookstein Decl., EX. 2026, W 55-56. In the
`
`garments of JCP-A, the already incomplete belly coverage discussed above is shown
`
`and there is no disclosure relating to holding the garment up and in place about the
`
`torso “during all stages of pregnancy.” Id.
`
`Indeed, JCP-A states that the “fold-over panel design” of its jeans “allows you
`
`to wear them before, during and after your pregnancy (see inset photos),” such that
`
`they “can be worn 3 ways depending 011 your stage of pregnancy.” JCP-A, EX. 1002
`
`EAST\75345661.6
`
`10
`
`I
`I
`I
`Target Corporatlon Exhlblt 1118
`
`
`
`at 2. In other words, JCP-A confirms that its “fold-over” feature is essential for
`
`holding the garment up and in place during certain stages of pregnancy.
`
`JC Penney’s deposition testimony confirms that JCP-A used the folding
`
`feature during different
`
`stages of pregnancy,
`
`rather
`
`than a fully extended
`
`configuration that worked during all stages of pregnancy. Simon Dep. Tr., EX. 3002,
`
`39:20-40:11;176:25 -177:6-12;186:13-20.
`
`By requiring the “fold-over” feature to hold the garment up and in place at
`
`earlier stages of pregnancy, JCP-A does not and cannot cover the entire abdomen
`
`during those stages, and instead JCP-A must necessarily expose more of the wearer’s
`
`abdomen during earlier stages of pregnancy. Thus, JCP-A does not disclose
`
`amended claim 1’s patented garment that covers the entire abdomen during all
`
`stages ofpregnancy.
`
`B. AMENDED CLAIM 1 IS PATENTABLE OVER BROWDER.
`
`The Board has preViously found that the high-waist brief embodiment of
`
`Browder does not read on maternity garments. PTAB Feb. 19 2014 Decision, Paper
`
`10, EX. 1031, at 22 (“Petitioner relies on a teaching regarding a different
`
`embodiment, which, unlike high-waist brief 30, is described as a maternity brief.
`
`That teaching, however, concerns a different embodiment. Accordingly, we are not
`
`persuaded that Browder discloses all limitations of claim 1 as arranged in the
`
`claim.”)
`
`(citations omitted). As described more fully above, Patent Owner’s
`
`EAST\75345661.6
`
`11
`
`I
`I
`I
`Target Corporatlon Exhlblt 1118
`
`
`
`proposed amendments now expressly recite that
`
`the invention is directed to
`
`maternity wear and, thus, amended claim 1 is patentable over Browder.
`
`Patent Owner also respectfully disagrees with the Board’s preliminary
`
`conclusion that the fabric used in Browder’s girdle is “expansible” within the
`
`meaning of the ‘563 patent because it may stretch to a small degree. In particular, the
`
`control area described in Browder is designed to tighten rather than expand—a
`
`characteristic not desirable in maternity wear. Brookstein Decl., Ex. 2026 1] 72.
`
`Moreover, the ordinary artisan would understand that the “control area” taught by
`
`Browder would not permit “a garment lower portion .
`
`.
`
`. that recedes downward to
`
`make way for expansion of the belly panel” as required by the claimed maternity
`
`garment. Brookstein Decl., Ex. 2026 1] 73.
`
`C. AMENDED CLAIM 1 IS NOT OBVIOUS.
`
`Patent Owner is aware of no prior art maternity garment with an attached
`
`expandable belly panel reaching just below the breast area. Therefore, there is no
`
`known combination of prior art that would meet the limitations of amended claim 1.
`
`See Brookstein Decl., Ex. 2026, W 81. Although Browder discloses a girdle
`
`embodiment that arguably approaches the breast area, a POSA would not combine it
`
`with the other references or modify it for maternity purposes. Id. at 1] 82. The
`
`maternity band garments of Stangle and Carney, which allow women to wear
`
`conventional or maternity garments unfastened to accommodate their growing
`
`EAST\75345661.6
`
`12
`
`I
`I
`I
`Target Corporatlon Exhlblt 1118
`
`
`
`abdomens during pregnancy, must extend below the waist and overlap the
`
`unfastened garments to work. Therefore it would not be obvious to modify these
`
`references or combine them with the prior art to make a maternity panel that extends
`
`to just below the breast area, as required by the ’563 patent. See id, W 78-80.
`
`Secondary considerations, like copying by others (including Petitioner) and
`
`commercial
`
`success,
`
`further show that
`
`the claims are not obvious. Power
`
`Integrations, Inc. v. Fatrchl'ld Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 711 F.3d 1348, 1368 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2013). “Secondary considerations evidence can establish that an invention
`
`appearing to have been obvious in light of the prior art was not and may be the most
`
`probative and cogent evidence in the record.”Apple Inc. v. ITC, 725 F.3d 1356, 1366
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2013) (citations and internal punctuation omitted). “This evidence guards
`
`against the use of hindsight because it helps turn back the clock and place the claims
`
`in the context that led to their invention.” Id.
`
`First, competitors copied Patent Owner’s Secret Fit Belly® styles, including
`
`Petitioner. Petitioner began selling products identical to Patent Owner’s Secret Fit
`
`Belly® product after the commercial success of the Secret Fit Belly® styles. See EX.
`
`2021 (July 17, 2007 Patent Owner press release introducing Secret Fit Belly®); EX.
`
`.
`Redacted
`2020
`CI1'f;f;T;TQTQTQTQIfoQfQTQTQTQTQTQfoQfQTQTQTQTQf;if:T;f;Z:T;T;foQfEE-éiéEtiéiTLT;T;T;T;f;f:TLT;T;T;T:TLT;T;T;T:T;T;:1TQTQITQTQTQTQTQTQTQfoQ
`'"E;;;;"§), Brady Dep. Tr., EX. 2019, 111:15-112:8 (1:"""""""""""Redacted""""""""""""
`
`EAST\75345661.6
`
`13
`
`I
`I
`I
`Target Corporatlon Exhlblt 1118
`
`
`
`difference between Petitioner’s pants and Patent Owner’s Secret Fit Belly® styles
`
`was that one of Petitioner’s pants had a seam in the back. Harder Dep. 125 :6-20 (EX.
`
`2018). As such, Petitioner merely copied Patent Owner’s product.
`
`Second, Patent Owner’s Secret Fit Belly® styles, which practice the instituted
`
`claims of the ”563 Patent4, enjoyed commercial success as shown in the attached
`
`commercial success report. See EX. 2022, Green Decl. at 1111 31-37. The economic
`
`evidence of commercial success is powerful, as demonstrated by the following: (1)
`
`millions of dollars of sales and profits for the patented products; (2) Secret Fit
`
`Belly® bottom sales have steadily increased as non-patented product sales have
`
`significantly decreased; (3) Secret Fit Belly® bottoms receive a price premium over
`
`non patented bottoms; and (4) the patented product has been used by competitors
`
`such as Target, which is evidenced above. Id.
`
`The Secret Fit Belly® bottom commercial success is due to the patented
`
`technology rather than marketing or other promotional activities, availability, or the
`
`non-patented features of the bottoms. Id. at 38-42. For examplej
`
`Redacted
`
`.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
`
`4Brookstein Decl., EX. 2026, 11 12.
`
`EAST\75345661.6
`
`14
`
`I
`I
`I
`Target Corporatlon Exhlblt 1118
`
`
`
`Patent Owner also sells its patented Secret Fit Belly® bottoms and unpatented
`
`bottoms in all stores and collections. Id. Finally, the difference between the Secret
`
`Fit Belly® bottoms and all other bottoms are the patented features. Id. at 1111 38-42.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`should grant Patent Owner’s motion to amend Claim 1 in the alternative.
`
`Dated: May 5, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`
`/s/ Paul Tauzjer
`Paul A. Taufer (USPTO Reg. No. 35, 703)
`Michael L. Burns (USPTO Reg. No. 57,593)
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`One Liberty Place
`1650 Market Street, Suite 4900
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Phone: (215) 656-3385
`Facsimile: (215) 606-3385
`pail] .talii'erttiidlapipercom
`michael .hu mséfldlapipercom
`
`Stuart Pollack (USPTO Reg. No. 43,862)
`1251 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor
`
`New York, NY 10020-1 104
`Phone: (212) 335-4964
`stuan .pollackfthdlapiper.com
`
`Attorneysfor Patent Owner, Destination
`Maternity Corporation
`
`EAST\75345661.6
`
`15
`
`Target Corporation Exhibit 1118
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6 and 42.120, the undersigned certifies that on May
`
`5, 2014, a complete and entire copy PATENT OWNER’S MOTION IN THE
`
`ALTERNATIVE TO AMEND CLAIM 1 OF US. PATENT NO. RE43,563 was
`
`provided via email to the Petitioner by serving the email correspondence address of
`
`record as follows:
`
`Norman J. Hedges
`R. Trevor Carter
`
`Daniel M. Lechleiter
`
`Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
`300 N. Meridian Street, Suite 2700
`Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-1750
`Phone: (317) 237—0300
`Fax: (317) 237-1000
`Norman .HcdgesflFaegreBDcom
`trevorcanergtbFaegreBDcom
`daniel .lechleiterftDFaegreBD.com
`
`S Paul Taufer
`Paul A. Taufer
`
`EAST\75345661.6
`
`16
`
`Target Corporation Exhibit 1118
`
`