PTAB

IPR2014-00768

BLD Services LLC v. LMK Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Apparatus and Method for Repairing Pipe Lines
  • Brief Description: The ’726 patent relates to devices and methods for repairing the juncture between a main pipeline and a lateral pipeline. The invention utilizes a liner assembly with a hydrophilic gasket designed to swell upon exposure to liquid, thereby forming a comprehensive and durable watertight seal at the pipe joint.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

The petition asserts a single ground of unpatentability against all claims.

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1-42 over Kiest ’118, Kiest ’663, De Neef, and Kempenaers

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kiest ’118 (Patent 6,994,118), Kiest ’663 (Patent 5,794,663), De Neef (SWELLSEAL® WA Installation Instructions, Apr. 2006), and Kempenaers ("The pressure resistance of SWELLSEAL Sealant WA," Sep. 2005).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of the prior art references teaches every element of the challenged claims. Kiest ’118 was asserted to disclose the foundational apparatus and method for repairing a main/lateral pipe junction, including a main liner member, a lateral liner tube, and an inflatable bladder assembly for pressing the liner against the host pipe. Kiest ’663 was argued to build upon this by teaching the use of a compressible, open-cell gasket positioned at the liner juncture. Kiest ’663 further discloses impregnating this gasket with a hydrophilic chemical grout to form a fluid-tight seal, and shows a gasket with both tubular and flange portions.

    • Petitioner contended that the combination of Kiest ’118 and Kiest ’663 discloses all major structural and method steps of the independent claims, including the liner assembly, bladder assembly, and the placement of a compressible gasket at the pipe juncture. To meet the specific material limitations of the gasket (e.g., hydrophilic, impermeable, capable of swelling), Petitioner pointed to Kiest ’118 itself, which suggests using hydrophilic materials such as SWELLSEAL. The De Neef and Kempenaers references were used to provide detailed technical descriptions of SWELLSEAL, confirming it was a well-known, commercially available sealant with the exact properties claimed: a hydrophilic, impermeable, compressible material, available as a rubber-like paste, that swells in the presence of water to form a durable seal. Petitioner mapped these combined teachings to the limitations of independent claims 1, 9, 16, 22, 27, 30, 34, and 40, arguing the combination rendered them obvious. Dependent claims were addressed by showing their additional limitations were also expressly taught or suggested by the same prior art combination.

    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the teachings for clear and predictable reasons. A POSITA starting with the pipe repair apparatus of Kiest ’118 would look to improve its sealing capability at the critical main-lateral juncture. Kiest ’663, which addresses this exact problem with a targeted gasket, provides a direct solution. Furthermore, because Kiest ’118 explicitly suggests using a hydrophilic material like SWELLSEAL for sealing, a POSITA would naturally be motivated to consult technical literature, such as De Neef and Kempenaers, to understand the properties of this specific material and integrate it into the Kiest apparatus. The combination represents the straightforward application of a known sealing technology (the Kiest ’663 gasket using SWELLSEAL) to a known pipe repair system (Kiest ’118) to achieve an improved, more reliable seal.

    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in making this combination. The references all operate in the same technical field of trenchless pipe repair. The function of each element was well understood; hydrophilic gaskets were known to swell and seal, and liner/bladder systems were known to position repair materials. Combining these known elements to perform their expected functions would lead to a predictable and successful outcome.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-42 of the ’726 patent as unpatentable.