Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA772202
`
`Filing date:
`
`09/22/2016
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91196923
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Plaintiff
`Grote Industries
`
`DANIEL J LUEDERS
`WOODARD EMHARDT MORIARTY MCNETT & HENRY LLP
`111 MONUMENT CIRCLE, SUITE 3700
`INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204-5137
`UNITED STATES
`dlueders@uspatent.com, docketdept@uspatent.com, pmoore@uspatent.com,
`stevezlatos@uspatent.com
`
`Brief on Merits for Plaintiff
`
`Daniel J. Lueders
`
`docketdept@uspatent.com, pmoore@uspatent.com
`
`/Daniel J. Lueders/
`
`09/22/2016
`
`Petitioner Grote Trial Brief REDACTED.pdf(962857 bytes )
`Adams Mfg. Corp. v. Rea_ 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31584.pdf(183822 bytes )
`
`

`

`#1039859
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`In the Matter of Miscellaneous Design (arrangement of LEDs)
`Application No. 77/618,319
`Published: June 8, 2010
`
`
`
`
`
`Grote Industries, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Opposition No. 91196923
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`REDACTED
`
`
`
`
`Truck-Lite Co., LLC
`
` f/k/a Truck-Lite Co., Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`In the Matter of Miscellaneous Design (stop-turn-tail lamp)
`U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,483,147
`Registered August 12, 2008
`
`___________________________________
`Grote Industries, Inc.
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`) Cancellation No. 92053498
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Truck-Lite Co., LLC
`
` f/k/a Truck-Lite Co., Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Registrant.
`
`
`OPPOSER/PETITIONER’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`Daniel J. Lueders
`Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry LLP
`111 Monument Circle, Suite 3700
`Indianapolis, IN 46204-5137
`(317) 634-3456
`
`Attorneys for Opposer/Petitioner Grote Industries, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................3
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD ...........................................................................................4
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ..................................................................................................5
`
`RECITATION OF THE FACTS ..................................................................................................5
`
`LEGAL ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................29
`
`I. STANDING ................................................................................................................29
`
`
`II. FUNCTIONALITY....................................................................................................30
`
`A. SHIFTING BURDEN OF PROOF.....................................................................30
`B. LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................30
`C. APPLICATION OF THE FOUR (4) MORTON-NORWICH
`FACTORS SUPPORTS A FINDING OF FUNCTIONALITY .......................32
`1. Morton-Norwich Factor One .....................................................................33
`2. Morton-Norwich Factor Two .....................................................................36
`3. Morton-Norwich Factor Three ..................................................................36
`4. Morton-Norwich Factor Four ....................................................................38
`
` D. TRUCK LITE’S ‘856 DESIGN PATENT DOES NOT PROVE
`
` THE ALLEGED TRADE DRESSES ARE NON-FUNCTIONAL .................40
`
`III. AESTHETICS ...........................................................................................................41
`
`A. AESTHETIC MATCHING ................................................................................42
`B. A PENTAGON IS A COMMON AESTHETICALLY
`PLEASING GEOMETRIC ARRANGEMENT................................................44
`
`IV. NO ACQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESS ...................................................................45
`
`V. FRAUD........................................................................................................................47
`
`A. LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................47
`B. THE FALSE DECLARATIONS IN THE ‘147 REGISTRATION .................48
`1. Paragraph 10: Not the Subject of Any Utility Patent .................................48
`2. No Proceedings in the Trademark Office ....................................................51
` C. THE FALSE DECLARATION IN THE ‘319 APPLICATION ......................52
`
`
`1. Paragraph 9: Not the Subject of Any Utility Patent ...................................52
`
`
`2. Paragraph 7: No Advantage to a Competitor .............................................54
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................55
`Appendix A (List of Exhibits) .....................................................................................................57
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Adams Mfg. Corp. v. Rea, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31584, p. 14-15 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2014) ... 47
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 114 USPQ2d (BNA) 1953 ......................................... 31, 32, 38
`Brunswick Corp. v. British Seagull Ltd., 32 USPQ2d (BNA) 1120 ....................................... 43, 46
`Coach Servs. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 101 USPQ2d (BNA) 1713 ........................................... 48
`Deere & Co. v. Farmhand, Inc., 217 USPQ (BNA) 252............................................................... 45
`Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 88 USPQ2d (BNA) 1658 ................................................. 42
`Herbaceuticals Inc. v. Xel Herbaceuticals Inc., 86 USPQ2d (BNA) 1572 .................................. 53
`In re Becton Dickinson, 102 USPQ2d (BNA) 1372 .............................................................. passim
`In re Bose Corp., 227 USPQ (BNA) 1 .......................................................................................... 41
`In re Bose Corp., 91 USPQ2d (BNA) 1938 ................................................................................. 48
`In re Controls Corp. of America, 46 USPQ2d (BNA) 1308 ......................................................... 32
`In re Heatcon, Inc., 116 USPQ2d (BNA) 1366 ............................................................................ 34
`In re Meyer & Wenthe, Inc., 122 USPQ (BNA) 372 .................................................................... 46
`In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 213 USPQ (BNA) 9 ......................................................... 34
`In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 227 USPQ (BNA) 417 ................................................... 46
`In re R.M. Smith, Inc., 222 USPQ (BNA) 1...................................................................... 41, 46, 54
`In re UDOR U.S.A., Inc., 89 USPQ2d (BNA) 1978 ..................................................................... 35
`In re Van Valkenburgh, 97 USPQ2d (BNA) 1757 ....................................................................... 34
`Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 214 USPQ (BNA) 1 ......................................................... 32
`Kistner Concrete Products Inc. v. Contech Arch Technologies Inc., 97 USPQ2d (BNA) 1912 . 30,
`31, 32, 34
`M-5 Steel Mfg. Inc. v. O'Hagin's Inc., 61 USPQ2d (BNA) 1086 ................................................. 45
`Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Mujahid Ahmad, 112 USPQ2d (BNA) 1361...................... 49, 50, 53
`Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., Inc., 34 USPQ2d (BNA) 1161.............................. 32, 33, 43
`Ritchie v. Simpson, 50 USPQ2d (BNA) 1023............................................................................... 32
`Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 16 USPQ2d (BNA) 2015 ................................................................... 52
`TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 58 USPQ2d (BNA) 1001 ....................... passim
`Valu Engineering Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 61 USPQ2d (BNA) 1422 .......................... 31, 32, 34, 38
`Yamaha Int’l Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co., 6 USPQ2d (BNA) 1001 ........................................... 46
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(5) ................................................................................................................... 30
`15 U.S.C. §1052(f) ........................................................................................................................ 31
`15 U.S.C. §1065(2) ....................................................................................................................... 51
`15 U.S.C. §1120 ............................................................................................................................ 55
`35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) ....................................................................................................................... 40
`Section 2(e)(5) of the Trademark Act ........................................................................................... 30
`TMEP §1212.01 ............................................................................................................................ 45
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`TTAB Rule 309.03(b) ................................................................................................................... 31
`
`RULES
`
`
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD
`
`
`The evidence of record consists of:
`
`(a)
`
`The consolidated pleadings (Complaint, 1 TTABVUE; Complaint, 7 TTABVUE,
`
`Answer, 3, 13, and 14 TTABVUE; Brief, Docket No. 39);
`
`(b)
`
`The prosecution histories of the ‘147 Lamp Registration and the ‘319 LED Configuration
`
`Application in the U.S. Patent Office, per TTAB Manual of Procedure §704.03(b)(2);
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`Exhibits 1-83 admissible via Grote’s Notice of Reliance (51 TTABVUE);
`
`Exhibits 100-123 (83 TTABVUE)(public, non-confidential 89 TTABVUE) admissible
`
`via the trial testimony, below; and,
`
`(e)
`
`1.
`
`The trial testimony of:
`
`Art Hernandez (Grote VP of Engineering)(79 TTABVUE)(non-confidential 85
`
`TTABVUE);
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`John Grote (Grote VP of Marketing) (78 TTABVUE)( non-confidential 84 TTABVUE);
`
`Phil Roller (Truck-Lite, Chief Research Engineer, retired)(82 TTABVUE)(non-
`
`confidential 88 TTABVUE);
`
`4.
`
`Greg Pond (Truck-Lite, former Project Engineer and currently Materials Manager)(two
`
`(2) transcripts, Pond-1; Pond-2)(81 TTABVUE)(non-confidential 87 TTABVUE); and,
`
`5.
`
`Robert Ives (Truck-Lite, former VP of Marketing, currently VP of Business
`
`Development)(two
`
`(2)
`
`transcripts,
`
`Ives-1;
`
`Ives-2)(80 TTABVUE)(non-confidential 86
`
`TTABVUE).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`Whether the product configurations in the ‘319 LED Configuration Application and '147
`
`Lamp Registration are functional.
`
`2.
`
`Whether the product configurations in the ‘319 LED Configuration Application and '147
`
`Lamp Registration are aesthetic or ornamental (a/k/a aesthetically functional).
`
`3.
`
`Whether the product configurations ‘319 LED Configuration Application and '147 Lamp
`
`Registration have been proven by Truck-Lite to have sufficient acquired distinctiveness.
`
`4.
`
`Whether Truck-Lite fraudulently made one or more material false statements to the
`
`Trademark Office during the prosecution of the ‘319 LED Configuration Application and '147
`
`Lamp Registration.
`
`RECITATION OF THE FACTS
`
`This is a product configuration trade dress case. This case is consolidated, involving one
`
`(narrower) issued U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,483,147 (Exhibit 31)(89 TTABVUE p.
`
`359), and another (broader) allowed Application No. 77/618,319 (Exhibit 32)(89 TTABVUE p.
`
`360-366). Opposer/Petitioner, hereafter “Grote”, seeks to cancel and opposes those, respectively.
`
`Grote contends that both are invalid as: (a) functional; (b) aesthetic; and/or (c) lacking
`
`acquired distinctiveness. Additionally, Grote contends that Truck-Lite committed fraud in the
`
`Trademark Office during the prosecution of each. The product configurations of the ‘319 LED
`
`Configuration Application and '147 Lamp Registration are both embodied by the Truck-Lite
`
`Model 44® stop-tail-turn lamp, Exhibit 115 (89 TTABVUE p. 672-673) and Ives 9:18-22; see
`
`also Exhibits 31 (89 TTABVUE p. 359) and 32 (89 TTABVUE p. 360-366). The product
`
`configuration of the '147 Lamp Registration, Exhibit 31 (89 TTABVUE p. 359), illustrated here,
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`is a drawing of the cover lens of the Truck-Lite Model 44® lamp, Exhibit 115 (89 TTABVUE p.
`
`672-673). The recited goods are “lighting products for vehicles, namely, a combined stop-turn-
`
`tail lamp”. It depicts a very functional item, namely the (red) cover
`
`lens with optics on a stop-tail-turn lamp1 used on the back of semi-
`
`truck cabs and trailers as the brake (stop) lamp, turn signal and tail
`
`light. The '147 Lamp Registration, Exhibit 31 (89 TTABVUE p.
`
`359), describes the product configuration as:
`
`The mark consists of the configuration of a stop/turn/tail light, which
`consists of a circular base and a circular cover portion. The circular cover
`portion of the stop/turn/tail light consists of an arrangement of circular
`patterns integrally formed within the cover. The circular patterns form
`individual lens portions arranged above light emitting diode (LED) lights
`located within the interior of the stop/turn/tail light. There are six lenses
`and six corresponding LED's. A center lens portion, which has a
`pentagonal perimeter, is located in the center of the cover. Each of the five
`additional lens portions are arranged around the pentagonal perimeter of
`the center lens portion. A corresponding LED is positioned below each lens
`portion. When illuminated, the light emitted from the six LED's shines
`through the corresponding lens portions and the aforementioned pattern of
`the LED's and lens portions is visible.
`
`
`
`
`The other product configuration at issue here, the ‘319 LED Configuration application,
`
`Exhibit 32 (89 TTABVUE p. 360-366), is broader in scope than the above ‘147 Lamp
`
`Registration, both in terms of: (a) the illustrated configuration; and, (b) the description of goods
`
`(“Electric lighting fixtures, namely lights for vehicles”). The trade dress in the ‘319 LED
`
`Configuration Application drawing is reprinted below:
`
`
`1 The “stop-tail-turn” lamp product is also sometimes referred to as an “S/T/T” or a
`“stop/turn/tail” light.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`The mark consists of an arrangement
`of six light emitting diodes (LED's)
`with one LED located in the center of
`a pentagonal pattern as applied to a
`circuit board sold as an integral
`component of a vehicle light.
`Additional structure is shown in
`broken lines to give context, but does
`not form any part of the mark.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Truck-Lite and Grote are and have been direct competitors for many years in the market
`
`for heavy duty vehicle (e.g. truck) lighting products. (Hernandez 11/13/14 Dep. 7:1-5; Grote
`
`10/1/14 Dep. 7:11-15; 8:22 - 10:12; 11:14-25; 12:24 - 14:16; 20:1-6). Beginning around the
`
`1990s both companies embarked on a transition from lamp products employing standard
`
`incandescent light bulb technology to ones employing light-emitting diodes (LEDs) as the light
`
`source. (Grote 12:9-20; Pond-1 15:19 - 17:13; Roller 16:14 - 18:2; Grote Exh. 120). One of the
`
`most common types of truck signal lighting products is known as a “4-inch round S/T/T”
`
`(referring to “stop/tail/turn”) lamp. (Grote 9:5-8 and 10:23 - 11:13; Hernandez 5:15 - 16:3; 7:6-
`
`16; 13:23 - 14:9; Pond-1 37:21 - 38:5). The term “4-inch round” is a reference to the
`
`approximate four inch diameter size and circular shape of the lamp. (Hernandez 13:23 - 14:24).
`
`Those size and circular shape are industry standard for S/T/T lamps. (Hernandez 14:4-11). The
`
`approximate 4-inch diameter of the circle is based on the need to comply with the National
`
`Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) regulation ‘12 Square Inch Rule’ which
`
`requires that the total luminous area for such a lamp must not be less than 75 square centimeters
`
`(11.625 square inches) for vehicles over 80 inches wide.2 (Hernandez 12:18 - 13:19; Pond-1
`
`
`2 The mathematical formula for determining the area of a circle (A=πr2), 11.625 = (3.14) x (r)2
`results in a radius “r” of approximately 2 inches or a diameter of 4 inches.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`37:11-20; Grote Exh. 77, p. 41). [
`
`
`
`]
`
`When Truck-Lite and Grote first transitioned their respective 4-inch round S/T/T lamp
`
`products to an LED light source they both required a relatively high number of LEDs to provide
`
`the required illumination to meet federal vehicle lighting safety requirements. For example,
`
`Grote’s early such products used as many as 24 LEDs while Truck-Lite’s used as many as 61
`
`LEDs. (Hernandez 9:4-9; Grote 18:8-16; Pond-1 16:8-16). As LED technology continued to
`
`improve, fewer and fewer LEDs were needed to meet the federal safety requirements for these
`
`products. (Hernandez 26:13 - 27:18; Exh. 77, p.47; Pond-1 16:8-17:13; Roller 38:15-41:19).
`
`LED costs are a significant consideration, and thus reducing the number of LEDs reduces the
`
`cost of the lamp. (Hernandez 29:11 - 30:5; Ives-1 30:20 - 33:6; Roller 41:13-19; Pond-1 72:18 -
`
`73:17 and 75:5 - 76:18). The improvements in LED technology offered a number of functional
`
`and cost saving advantages so competitors found it in their interest to reduce the number of
`
`LEDs in their respective products. By the late 90’s and early 2000’s, the number of LEDs needed
`
`in a 4-inch round S/T/T lamp had dropped to less than ten. This history is graphed in Truck-
`
`Lite’s 2007 Lighting User’s Guide publication, Exhibit 77 (89 TTABVUE p. 555-623) at page
`
`47. (Hernandez 26:13-27:18; Exh. 77, p.47; Pond-1 75:5 - 76:18; Roller 38:15 - 41:19). As the
`
`number of LEDs was reduced, as a matter of geometry fewer and fewer optimal LED
`
`configurations were available in a 4” circular lamp.3
`
`[
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 See Fig. 1, “Optimal packings of 2-11 circles in a circle”; Dense packings of congruent circles
`in a circle, Discrete Mathematics Vol. 181, p.144 (1998). Exhibit 69 (89 TTABVUE p. 533-
`548).
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`] The 6-LED LumiLeds array is shown in Exhibit 103 (89 TTABVUE
`
`p. 636-640). The arrangement of the six LEDs in Lumileds’ 6-LED SnapLED array module is in
`
`the configuration of a pentagon with the sixth diode located in the center, and is identical to the
`
`configuration of Truck-Lite’s alleged trade dress. This LED configuration, referred to by Grote
`
`as “five-around-one” (Hernandez 9:20-23) and by Truck-Lite as a “Penta-Star” (Exhibit 25 (89
`
`TTABVUE p. 33-35), ¶ 4; Ives-1 21:18 – 22:1 and Exhibit 115 (89 TTABVUE p. 672-673)),
`
`spaces the six LEDs equidistantly from each other and as far apart as is allowed within the
`
`spatial area of the 4-inch diameter of the circular shaped lamp. (Pond-1 40:15-41:6; 42:9-18;
`
`44:16-50:14; Hernandez 35:13-20).
`
`While the Lumileds 6-LED array, Exhibit 103 (89 TTABVUE p. 636-640), discussed
`
`above and used by Truck-Lite, is not the only way that a competitor such as Grote could make a
`
`
`4 The SnapLED system patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,404,282 and 5,519,596 are referenced in
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`competitive five-around-one LED stop-tail-turn lamp, it certainly is one convenient way.
`
`(Hernandez 29:8 – 34:7; Pond-2, 38:6 to 39:21; Ives-2, 131:18-25). It is convenient since that
`
`off-the-shelf component, Exhibit 103 (89 TTABVUE p. 636-640), is “a standard [Lumileds]
`
`product, it’s already tooled up; therefore if we were to use that product or anybody in our
`
`industry use that product, they don’t have to pay for the tooling.” (Hernandez 33:13 – 34:7).
`
`
`
`] Thereafter, Lumileds
`
`[
`
`offered to also sell them to Grote. Specifically, in 2007 (Exhibit 102)(83 TTABVUE), in 2009
`
`(Exhibit 104)(83 TTABVUE), and again in 2014 (Exhibits 110)(83 TTABVUE) Lumileds has
`
`repeatedly made it clear to Grote that Lumileds would sell its 6-LED array (designed specifically
`
`for S/T/T lamps) to Grote. (Hernandez 33:13 - 34:7 and 45:16 – 51:10). Truck-Lite’s contrary
`
`statements to this Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, seeking to raise questions of fact to avoid
`
`summary judgment, Docket No. 39, page 3, were simply false. (Hernandez, 51:17 – 55:6).
`
`As Grote’s Vice President of Engineering, Art Hernandez, explained, the features of the
`
`alleged 5-around-1 LED configuration are functional, being the byproduct of logical engineering.
`
`In terms of size or shape, a 4-inch round (circular) S/T/T is the most common size and shape in
`
`the industry. (Hernandez 13:23 – 14:11; Roller 32:13 - 34:20 and Exhibit 115)(89 TTABVUE p.
`
`672-673). As far as the number of LEDs, six (6), this is the logical consequence of two
`
`engineering considerations. First, as Truck-Lite’s own “Lighting User Guide”, Exhibit 77 (89
`
`TTABVUE p. 555-623), page 47, graphs and states, in that 2000 timeframe, a S/T/T lamp
`
`
`Truck-Lite’s ‘172 Patent, Exhibit 28 (89 TTABVUE p. 320-327), at column 2, lines 56-57.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`needed at least six (6) LEDs to have adequate brightness to make it “legal”. Second, because
`
`vehicles use a 12.8 volt system, and since the voltage drop of these LEDs individually is
`
`approximately 4 volts (each), the most efficient use of the 12.8 volt electrical current is to layout
`
`the LEDs in branches of three (3) LEDs per series. In other words, the voltage drop would drop
`
`from 12.8 to 8.8, then to 4.8, then to 0.8 as the voltage drops across each of the three (3) diodes
`
`in series (or in other words in each branch) in the electrical circuit. As Mr. Hernandez explained,
`
`given the vehicle’s 12.8 voltage engineering constraint, this optimizes the output of light while
`
`minimizing the output of undesirable heat. (Hernandez 17:2 - 25:17). Thus, multiple of 3 diodes
`
`(3, 6, 9, 12, etc.) is the optimal circuit layout. (Hernandez 18:10 - 19:3). Given that 6 LEDs
`
`were required for adequate brightness to be legal, and given that 6 is a multiple of 3, six light-
`
`emitting diodes was in 2000-2001 the optimal number for a 4-inch round S/T/T lamp.
`
`
`
`Indeed, [
`
`] He also admitted the 5 around 1 “Penta-Star” design
`
`provided functional advantages. (Pond-2, 30:16 to 32:9).
`
`Once one is constrained by the standard 4 inch circular shape in which to place six LEDs,
`
`the configuration choices are limited. As Mr. Hernandez explained, heat is bad for LEDs and in
`
`designing an LED lamp one wants to dissipate the heat. (Hernandez 21:11-14). And, since the
`
`light-emitting diodes are the source of heat, it is optimal to space them out such that you
`
`maximize the shortest distance between any two LEDs, thereby avoid concentration of heat. Id.
`
`With six LEDs within a circle, this spacing is optimized by the 5-around-1 array, such as
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`depicted in Exhibit 69 (89 TTABVUE p. 533-548), page 3, Figure 3. (Hernandez 31:21-33:12).
`
`Moreover, as discussed below, that balanced arrangement is aesthetically pleasing. (Pond-1
`
`13:1-14:16; 52:12-53:1; Ives-1 34:15-20). Finally, having one LED in the center is
`
`advantageous in that the Federal NHTSA regulations regarding light output require the greatest
`
`amount of light in the photometric center, (known as the “H-V”), of the lamp. (49 CFR
`
`§571.108; Hernandez 30:11-31:20).
`
`
`
`] As regards the 5-around-1 so-called “Penta-Star”
`
`
`
` [
`
`array, [
`
`]
`
` Truck-Lite’s statements in its own patent filings and advertising material confirmed
`
`these functional aspects. While their later advertising migrated away from these admissions,
`
`presumably in an effort to bolster their alleged trade dress claims, their earlier publications spoke
`
`truthfully: “Advanced optics design creates a greater dispersion of light” and “SnapLed® array
`
`dissipates heat more effectively, resulting in greater light output”. (Exhibit 70)(89 TTABVUE p.
`
`
`
`549).
`
`In addition to the functional considerations, [
`
`]
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Truck-Lite introduced the 6-LED SnapLED 4-inch round S/T/T lamp to the market in
`
`late 2000. (Ives-1 50:14 - 51:2; Pond-1 63:19 – 64:9; Exhibit 31 (89 TTABVUE p. 359)). The
`
`
`
`product was marketed under Truck-Lite’s “Super 44®”
`
` trademark, and [
`
`]
`
`On August 31, 2000, Truck-Lite filed a provisional patent application Serial No.
`
`60/229,229 entitled “COMBINED STOP/TURN/TAIL/CLEARANCE LAMP USING SnapLED
`
`TECHNOLOGY.” (Exhibit 30)(89 TTABVUE p. 335-358). A year later, on August 31, 2001,
`
`Truck-Lite filed utility patent application Serial No. 09/943,989 entitled “COMBINED
`
`STOP/TURN/TAIL/ CLEARANCE LAMP USING LIGHT EMITTING DIODE
`
`TECHNOLOGY.” (hereafter, “‘989 Patent Application”). (Exhibit 27)(89 TTABVUE p. 36-
`
`319). The ‘989 Patent Application claimed priority to provisional application No. 60/229,229,
`
`and the utility patent issued on November 25, 2003 as U.S. Patent No. 6,654,172 (hereafter,
`
`“‘172 Utility Patent”). (Exhibit 28)(89 TTABVUE p. 320-327). Gregory Pond and Phil Roller
`
`were named co-inventors. Id.
`
`Truck-Lite’s original patent filings included admissions regarding functionality of
`
`design. For example, paragraphs [0005], [0012] and [0015] in their originally-filed patent
`
`application, (Exhibit 27 (89 TTABVUE p. 36-319) -- April 3, 2003 Substitute Specification,
`
`Appendix B therein), made the following candid admissions about the functionality of the LED
`
`array in their product:
`
`
`
`[0005] The SnapLED™ is also more efficient in producing light, resulting in an ability
`
`to use a lower number of diodes for an application. This design feature allows for more
`
`freedom and creativity in the plan of vehicular lamps, since problems like heat dissipation
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`or high number of light emitting diodes are no longer an issue. In addition, the
`
`SnapLED™ technology allows for a lower cost LED lamp, since the lamp does not
`
`require a large number of LEDs to meet standards or specifications. In addition, the use
`
`of the SnapLED™ technology requires the use of optical elements in the lens of a
`
`vehicles’ lamp in order to meet, or exceed, the specifications set by the U.S. Department
`
`of Transportation.
`
`
`
`[0012] … Therefore, a need arises for a specific lamp design to take advantage of the
`
`additional capabilities of SnapLED™ technology. The tail/stop lamp disclosed herein is
`
`specifically designed to take advantage of SnapLED™ technology and to solve the
`
`problems present in the prior art.
`
`
`
`[0015] It is a further object of the present invention to provide a lens for a combined
`
`stop/tail/turn/clearance lamp for vehicles that has a unique combination of optical
`
`elements designed to distribute light over a specified range and at a specified intensity.
`
`(Exhibit 27 (89 TTABVUE p. 36-319), substitute specification, Appendix B, pages 2, 4 and 5).
`
`Truck-Lite later deleted those admissions expressly, id., but concurrently re-included them by
`
`incorporating by reference the provisional application which contained the admissions, Exhibit
`
`26 (51 TTABVUE p. 323-353), into the issued patent. (Exhibit 28 (89 TTABVUE p. 320-327),
`
`Col. 1, lines 6-8). [
`
`
`
`]
`
`Truck-Lite’s ‘172 Utility Patent not only describes the individual Snap-LED diodes used
`
`in Truck-Lite’s Super 44 stop/tail/turn lamp product; it also discusses the use of them in an
`
`“array”. As Mr. Hernandez explained, an “array” is different than a single Snap-
`
`LED. (Hernandez 34:8 - 35:12). And, the one and only array disclosed in the utility patent is the
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`alleged trade dress 5-around-1 array, including its functional optical lenses over that
`
`array. (Pond-2, 37:14 to 37:25; Exhibit 28 (89 TTABVUE p. 320-327), Figs. 1, 2 and 4). Such
`
`optical lenses, featured prominently in the Truck-Lite ‘147 Lamp Registration, include lenses 50,
`
`60, and 70 directly over the LEDs, as well as Fresnel lenses 40 surrounding each LED in the
`
`form of concentric rings. These lenses are disclosed in the utility patent, and their functionality
`
`is described therein. (Exhibit 28 (89 TTABVUE p. 320-327), column 2, lines 4-15). The '147
`
`Lamp Registration, Exhibit 31 (89 TTABVUE p. 359), matches the six "optical elements" 50, 60
`
`and 70 located over six LED's in the Pentagon Pattern, and "Fresnel rings 40 function as
`
`refracting surfaces…" as drawn and described in the ‘172 Utility Patent. (Exhibit 28 (89
`
`TTABVUE p. 320-327); Hernandez 15:21 – 17:1; Pond-1 12:15 – 14:16):
`
`
`
`
`
`'172 Patent FIG. 2 '147 Registration
`
`The ‘172 Utility Patent describes functional aspects of the five-around-one lamp lens 30
`
`configuration shown in Figure 2 with its optical elements functioning as refracting surfaces over
`
`six light emitting diodes (i.e., LEDs), stating:
`
`FIG. 2 is a top plan view of lamp 10. As shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, lens
`30 comprises a combination of a first optical element 60, a second optical element
`70, and a third optical element 50. Lens 30 has a face and a back. The face of lens
`30 is smooth and is exposed to the environment when lamp 10 is assembled. As
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`further shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, a fourth optical element, Fresnel rings 40,
`surround each of the optical elements 50, 60 and 70. Fresnel rings 40 are formed
`as tiny grooves on the back of lens 30. Fresnel rings 40 function as refracting
`surfaces, sending parallel rays of light emitted from the light emitting diodes to a
`common focus.
`
`* * *
`In the embodiment depicted in FIGS. 1-2, the arrangement of the first,
`second and third optical elements is as follows: First optical element 60 is
`positioned in the center of lens 30. Surrounding first optical element 60, five
`optical elements are positioned around the periphery of lens 30. Referring to FIG.
`2, one of third optical element 50 is positioned in the upper right corner, toward
`the outer edge of lens 30. Proceeding clockwise, one of second optical element
`70 is positioned toward the outer edge of lens 30 with grooves 71 oriented
`substantially in the horizontal direction. Moving clockwise, one of second optical
`element 70 is positioned toward the outer edge of lens 30. This second optical
`element 70 is, however, rotated ninety (90) degrees such that grooves 71 are
`oriented substantially vertical in a direction perpendicular to that of the adjacent
`second optical element 70. Moving clockwise, one of third optical element 50 is
`positioned toward the outer edge of lens 30. Finally, moving clockwise, one of
`second optical element 70 is positioned toward the outer edge of lens 30 and
`oriented substantially vertical.
`
`
`(Exhibit 28 (89 TTABVUE p. 320-327), column 2, lines 4-15; column 3, lines 14-33; Hernandez
`
`36:24 - 37:22).
`
`Independent claim 6 of the ‘172 Utility Patent specifically claims each of the optical
`
`elements of the Figure 2 lens configuration that is the subject of the '147 Lamp Registration and
`
`the ‘319 LED Configuration Application: “a lens…having, a first optical element [60]…a
`
`second optical element [70]… a third optical element [50], and a fourth optical element to refract
`
`said light into a common focus.” (Exhibit 28 (89 TTABVUE p. 320-327), column 4, lines 35-
`
`51).
`
`[
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`]
`
`At least several third-party companies, including Truck-Lite’s competitors, have been and
`
`continue to sell lamps with the 5-around-1 LED configuration. (Exhibits 37 – 67 (89 TTABVUE
`
`p. 370-504) and 116 (83 TTABVUE); Hernandez 56:18 – 59:6; Grote 26:16 – 31:23 and 33:6 –
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`36:18; 37:17 – 42:7; [
`
`] For example, Mr. Ives swore to the Trademark Office in 2008 and again in 2009 that
`
`“Truck-Lite’s competitors have chosen different designs for their lighting products which
`
`correspond to the products em