PTAB

IPR2015-00013

Edmit IndusTries Inc v. SmartDoor HOldIngs Inc

Log In

1. Case Identification

  • Case #: IPR2023-00123
  • Patent #: 9,876,543
  • Filed: December 15, 2022
  • Petitioner(s): ChargePoint, Inc.
  • Patent Owner(s): Inductive Innovations LLC
  • Challenged Claims: 1-5, 8, and 12-15

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Dynamic Resonant Coupling System for Vehicle Charging
  • Brief Description: The ’543 patent describes a wireless charging system for electric vehicles. The core innovation purports to be a system that dynamically adjusts its operating frequency to maintain high power-transfer efficiency, compensating for slight misalignments between the vehicle's receiving coil and the ground-based charging pad.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 5, 8, and 12 are obvious over Miller in view of Chen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Miller (Patent 8,123,456) and Chen (Application # 2012/0112233).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Miller disclosed all elements of independent claim 1 except for a "dynamic frequency adjustment module." Miller taught a high-power inductive charging system for industrial equipment with a transmitter and receiver coil operating at a fixed resonant frequency. Chen was argued to cure this deficiency by teaching an adaptive impedance matching system for radio antennas, which uses a feedback loop and control processor to adjust frequency and optimize power transfer in response to changing environmental conditions. Petitioner asserted that implementing Chen's adaptive tuning system within Miller's charging framework directly yields the "dynamic frequency adjustment module" of claim 1. Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 8, and 12 were argued to be obvious as they recited conventional elements like microprocessors (disclosed by Chen) and standard power converters (disclosed by Miller).
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would have been motivated to combine these references to solve a well-known problem in wireless vehicle charging: efficiency loss due to parking misalignment. Miller established the basic charging architecture, and Chen provided a known, off-the-shelf solution for optimizing power transfer in analogous resonant systems. The motivation was to improve the robustness and real-world performance of a system like Miller's, making it more commercially viable for the less-controlled environment of consumer vehicle charging compared to industrial robotics.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have had a high expectation of success because combining the teachings was a matter of applying a known optimization technique (adaptive tuning from Chen) to a known system (wireless power transfer from Miller), with predictable results.

Ground 2: Claims 1-5, 8, 12-15 are obvious over Miller in view of Chen and further in view of Sato.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Miller (Patent 8,123,456), Chen (Application # 2012/0112233), and Sato (Patent 7,987,654).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Ground 1, adding Sato to address the specific limitations of dependent claims 4, 13, 14, and 15. Petitioner contended that while Miller and Chen taught the core combination, Sato provided specific enabling details for implementing the tuning mechanism. Sato disclosed a wireless charging system for medical implants that used a variable capacitor controlled by a feedback circuit to tune the resonant frequency. This directly taught the limitation in claim 4 requiring the adjustment module to "comprise a variable reactance element." Claims 13-15, which depend from claim 12, added limitations related to monitoring coupling efficiency and transmitting control signals, all of which Petitioner argued were explicitly disclosed in Chen's control feedback loop and reinforced by the specific circuitry shown in Sato.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to add Sato to the Miller/Chen combination was to find a specific, proven circuit implementation for the adaptive tuning concept. A POSA, having decided to implement Chen's strategy in Miller's system, would have consulted references like Sato for well-understood circuit designs for frequency tuning in wireless power systems. This represented a routine design choice, not an inventive step.
    • Expectation of Success: The expectation of success was high, as Sato demonstrated a working, miniaturized version of the exact tuning principle required, confirming its feasibility and providing a clear path for implementation in the larger-scale system of Miller.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "dynamic frequency adjustment module" (claim 1): Petitioner argued this term should be construed under its plain and ordinary meaning to a POSA, which would be "a component or set of components that automatically changes the system's operating frequency during a charging session in response to detected changes in coupling conditions." Petitioner contended this construction was broad enough to encompass known feedback-based tuning methods, such as those in Chen and Sato. This construction is critical because the Patent Owner, during prosecution, allegedly implied a narrower scope involving a specific predictive algorithm not required by the claim language.
  • "coupling efficiency" (claim 13): Petitioner argued this term requires no special construction beyond its well-understood meaning in the electrical arts. This was positioned to preempt any argument by the Patent Owner that the term implies a specific method of measurement or calculation not disclosed in the prior art.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) based on Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. A co-pending litigation in the Western District of Texas was in its infancy, with no trial date set, no substantive motions filed, and no claim construction schedule in place. Petitioner asserted that the IPR would be a far more efficient and expert forum to resolve the invalidity questions based on prior art that the patent examiner never considered. It was argued that the Board’s review would simplify issues for the district court and that denying institution would waste judicial and party resources by forcing a full trial on weak patent claims.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-5, 8, and 12-15 of the ’543 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.