Top Glory Trading Group Inc. v. Cole Haan LLC

Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petitioner shows that a significant change in law (here, the Federal Circuit's change in the design patent obviousness standard in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations LLC) occurred after the challenged patent was examined and issued under the since-abrogated standard, the Director may decline to discretionarily deny institution, because considering the merits is an appropriate use of Office resources despite any settled expectations the patent owner may have. No prior precedent directly addressed this issue in the text; the Director relied on a prior Director decision, Intel Corp. v. Proxense, LLC, IPR2025-00327, Paper 12, 2-3 (Director June 26, 2025), as cited by Petitioner for the significant-change-in-law argument. Petitioners can now point to an intervening change in governing law, such as a changed obviousness standard for design patents, to counter a settled-expectations argument for discretionary denial. Patent owners with older design patents examined under the abrogated standard cannot count on settled expectations alone to avoid institution. The Board relied on LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations LLC, 102 F.4th 1280, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2024), as the source of the changed obviousness standard. LEGAL TEST OR STANDARD: The Director weighed the discretionary denial request on the totality of the record and all relevant considerations. The Director treated Petitioner's argument that a significant change in law has occurred since the patent issued as counseling against discretionary denial, and balanced it against any settled expectations of the Patent Owner. The decision lists no numbered factors. TRIGGERING FACTS: Patent D768,959 S was examined and issued under a design patent obviousness standard that the Federal Circuit has since abrogated. Petitioner argued that LKQ fundamentally changed the obviousness standard for design patents and that this impacts the validity of the challenged patent. Patent Owner asserted settled expectations, and Petitioner opposed that assertion. KEY QUOTE: "The challenged patent was examined and issued under an obviousness standard for design patents that the Federal Circuit has since abrogated, and it is an appropriate use of Office resources to consider the merits of Petitioner’s challenge despite any settled expectations Patent Owner may have." (Paper 18, p. 2) PRIOR PRECEDENT AFFECTED: No prior precedential or informative decision is directly affected. The decision cites Intel Corp. v. Proxense, LLC, IPR2025- 00327, Paper 12, 2–3 (Director June 26, 2025), only as Petitioner's authority for the significant-change-in-law argument, and does not say it modifies or distinguishes that decision. PRACTICE TIP: As petitioner, identify in your discretionary denial opposition the specific intervening change in law, show that the challenged patent issued under the superseded standard, and explain how the change affects validity. Tie it expressly to the settled-expectations argument. As patent owner, do not rely on settled expectations alone where the patent issued under a standard later abrogated.