Case: 20-1862 Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 07/07/2021
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION,
Appellant
v.
ANDREW HIRSHFELD, PERFORMING THE
FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF
THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK
OFFICE,
Intervenor
______________________
2020-1862, 2020-1864
______________________
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2018-
01749, IPR2018-01755.
______________________
Decided: July 7, 2021
______________________
JAMES F. VALENTINE, Perkins Coie LLP, Palo Alto, CA,
for appellant. Also represented by VICTORIA Q. SMITH; DAN
L. BAGATELL, Hanover, NH.
DANIEL KAZHDAN, Office of the Solicitor, United States
Case: 20-1862 Document: 58 Page: 2 Filed: 07/07/2021
2 RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION v. HIRSHFELD
Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for interve-
nor. Also represented by THOMAS W. KRAUSE, MAUREEN
DONOVAN QUELER, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED.
______________________
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, REYNA and HUGHES, Circuit
Judges.
MOORE, Chief Judge.
Ralph Lauren appeals two inter partes review final
written decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
holding Ralph Lauren failed to prove claims 70 and 72 of
U.S. Patent No. 5,995,102 and claims 1–3, 5–7, 12–15, 28,
29, 31, 32, 38, 39, 53–56, 58–63, 73–75, and 77–80 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,118,449 would have been obvious. In both de-
cisions, the Board determined that Ralph Lauren’s peti-
tions had not adequately identified where and how the
prior art teaches certain limitations. See J.A. 24–25, 61.
The Board also declined to consider arguments that Ralph
Lauren made for the first time in its reply briefs. See J.A.
33, 78–79. Ralph Lauren challenges these determinations,
arguing the Board misinterpreted or failed to consider por-
tions of the petitions.
We review the Board’s compliance with legal standards
de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence.
Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir.
2015). We review the Board’s determination that a peti-
tioner exceeded the scope of a proper reply for abuse of dis-
cretion. Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge
Ltd.,
821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
We see no error in the Board’s reasoning, nor do we
conclude the Board abused its discretion. Ralph Lauren’s
challenges have no merit. The Board stepped through the
evidence presented in the petitions and, based on the gaps
it identified in the petitions’ arguments and evidence, de-
termined Ralph Lauren had not met its burden of demon-
strating unpatentability. See J.A. 33, 78–79. The Board
Case: 20-1862 Document: 58 Page: 3 Filed: 07/07/2021
RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION v. HIRSHFELD 3
also did not abuse its discretion by declining to consider ar-
guments Ralph Lauren made in its reply that it failed to
make in its petitions. See J.A. 24–25, 61. Accordingly, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED
