UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
