PTAB

IPR2014-00375

Clariant Corp v. CSP Technologies Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Resealable Moisture Tight Container Assembly For Strips And The Like Having A Lip Snap Seal
  • Brief Description: The ’778 patent describes a container and lid assembly designed to provide a substantially moisture-proof seal for storing sensitive items like diagnostic test strips. The invention centers on a dual-sealing mechanism comprising a snap-fit closure and a flexible lip seal that deflects to seal against an interior surface of the container.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Hekal - Claims 1-7 are anticipated by Hekal under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hekal (International Publication No. WO 96/33108) and Abrams (Patent 4,783,056), which is expressly incorporated by reference into Hekal.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hekal, particularly when read with the incorporated disclosure of Abrams, teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Hekal discloses a hinged, moisture-proof container assembly for storing medications, which includes a desiccant integrally constructed with the container body. The assembly features both an outer snap-fit seal (an inwardly facing extension on the lid’s skirt interlocking with an outwardly facing extension on the container) and an inner flexible lip seal member. Petitioner asserted that the lip seal member in Hekal/Abrams is designed to be sufficiently deflective upon closure to create a moisture-proof seal, meeting the requirements of claim 1. Dependent claims were argued to be met as Hekal’s container is suitable for storing moisture-sensitive items like test strips (claim 3) and is inherently designed for repeated opening and closing (claim 4).

Ground 2: Anticipation by Capitol Vial Website - Claims 1-7 are anticipated by the Capitol Vial Website under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Capitol Vial Website (a publicly available website describing the “Capitol Vial Three Seal Design” product, published as early as August 2000).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that the product described and depicted on the Capitol Vial Website, a prior art printed publication, discloses all elements of claims 1-7. The website described its containers as "airtight, leak-proof" and featured a hinged lid. Petitioner mapped the claim elements to diagrams on the website, identifying an outer snap-fit seal and an inner flexible lip seal (referred to as a "lid valve"). The site explained that the "first seal" is formed by the "union of the lid valve with the inside surface of the container wall," created by "structural interference" that forces the top of the container into a small space, which Petitioner argued inherently describes the claimed deflection of a flexible seal. The website also noted the containers are used in the diagnostic testing industry, satisfying the limitations of dependent claims.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Sacherer - Claims 1-7 are obvious over Sacherer in view of Hekal and/or Ostrowsky under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sacherer (Patent 5,788,064) in view of Hekal (WO 96/33108) and/or Ostrowsky (Patent 3,968,880).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Sacherer discloses a substantially moisture-proof, hinged container for storing diagnostic test strips that includes a desiccant chamber and a flexible lip seal member (an "elastic annular ring"). Sacherer’s seal deforms when the lid is closed to press against the container rim. Petitioner asserted the only elements arguably not disclosed in Sacherer are the specific interlocking "inwardly facing extension" on the skirt and "outwardly facing extension" on the container lip that form a snap-fit seal.
    • Motivation to Combine: Sacherer expressly states that for its "locking means," prior art embodiments "can be considered." Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), seeking a reliable and simple locking mechanism for the Sacherer container, would have been motivated to look at well-known prior art solutions. Hekal and Ostrowsky both disclose the exact type of abutting and interlocking snap-fit extensions claimed in the ’778 patent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to implement the known snap-fit closure from Hekal or Ostrowsky as the "locking means" in Sacherer’s container.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as combining a known snap-fit closure with a container having a flexible seal involves the application of simple, predictable mechanical principles.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner also asserted claims 1-7 are anticipated by Bucholtz (WO 01/94240) and are obvious over Wheeler (Patent 4,043,475) in view of Hekal, Hekal (Patent 5,911,937), and/or Sacherer.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Flexible lip seal member": Petitioner argued this term should be construed to mean a member that extends downwardly from the lid, is capable of deflecting, and seals against the container when closed. Based on the patent owner’s infringement contentions in co-pending litigation, Petitioner asserted this construction covers a member configured to abut the interior side of the top of the container. This construction was central to mapping the functionality of seals in the prior art to the claims.
  • "Snap-fit": Petitioner contended this should be construed as a simple and well-known assembly method that joins two parts via interlocking extensions without additional components. This broad, functional construction was used to argue that various locking mechanisms in the prior art, such as those in Hekal and Ostrowsky, met this limitation.
  • "Opening... spaced away from an outer surface": Based on the patent owner's litigation positions, Petitioner argued this language covers not only openings that are horizontally offset from the container sidewall but also openings that are simply in-line with the sidewall, as long as the top container surface creates some spacing. This broad interpretation was critical for applying prior art where the container opening was co-extensive with the sidewall.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-7 of the ’778 patent as unpatentable.