直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Lights Out for Light-up Shoe Patents Found to Be Obvious

July 7, 2020

Authored and Edited by Michelle G. Rice; Kevin D. Rodkey; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

In Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children's Group, LLC, Nos. 2019-1622, -1623 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decisions in two IPRs, holding the challenged claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,992,038 and 9,301,574 unpatentable as obvious.

Shoes by Firebug LLC (“Firebug”) owns the challenged patents relating to illumination systems for footwear. Stride Rite Children’s Group, LLC (“Stride Rite”) filed IPRs challenging the two patents after Firebug sued for infringement. In its final written decisions, the Board held all challenged claims of both patents unpatentable as obvious. Firebug appealed.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed. For the ’038 patent, the Court agreed with the Board’s conclusion that the preamble did not limit the claims because the claim body recited a “structurally complete article.” The Court explained that the elements in the preamble were “independently recited in the body of the claim” and that the preamble’s “textile material” was not necessary for the invention. Thus, the Court held that  the preamble did not limit the scope. For the ’547 patent, the Court agreed with Firebug that the preamble limited the claims because the claim body “require[d] that the illumination system be housed in the textile footwear recited in the preamble,” but also agreed with the Board’s ultimate conclusion of obviousness under the proper claim scope. 

The Court rejected Firebug’s arguments related to secondary considerations, and specifically whether the Board failed to consider two license agreements and related testimony. The Court explained that the license agreements included a trademark and additional patents and did not establish the requisite nexus. The Court also agreed with the Board to accord limited weight to Firebug’s declaration testimony. Weighing the secondary considerations evidence in totality, the Court found no error in the Board’s conclusion and affirmed the obviousness determinations.

Tags

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), Obviousness (35 USC § 103), validity, patentability, secondary considerations of non-obviousness, claim construction

Related Practices

Appeals to the PTAB

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Related Offices

Atlanta, GA

Washington, DC

Contacts

Michelle_Yongyuan_Rice
Michelle G. Rice
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4229
Email
Kevin D. Rodkey
Partner
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6484
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Related Insights

Conference

Patent Litigation Europe 2027

January 18-20, 2027

Amsterdam

Reception

2026 IPO Education Foundation Awards Dinner

December 15, 2026

Washington, DC

Panel Discussion

2026 Advanced Patent Law Institute

December 3-4, 2026

Stanford

Conference

IPBC Asia 2026

November 17-19, 2026

Tokyo

Conference

IAM Live: Trade Secret Strategy USA

November 1, 2026

San Jose

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 4, 2026

Paris

Conference

Life Sciences Patent Network North America Fall 2026

November 2-3, 2026

San Francisco

Conference

2026 ANA Masters of Advertising Law Conference

November 2-4, 2026

Huntington Beach

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP