Kamstrup AS v. Apator Miitors ApS

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2015-01403
• Patent #: 8,893,559
• Filed: June 12, 2015
• Petitioner(s): Kamstrup A/S
• Patent Owner(s): Miitors Aps
• Challenged Claims: 1-13

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Ultrasonic Consumption Meter
• Brief Description: The ’559 patent discloses an ultrasonic consumption meter, such as a water or gas meter, featuring a hermetically sealed housing for its electronic components and transducers. The housing is secured to a flow channel via a locking mechanism, and the patent emphasizes configurations where the housing is not penetrated by electrical wires.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Walker and Drachmann ’311 - Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 11-13 are obvious over Walker in view of Drachmann '311.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Walker (Patent 1,473,751) and Drachmann ’311 (European Patent Application Publication EP 1 983 311).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Walker, a 1923 patent, taught the core mechanical structure of the invention: a water meter housing locked to a flow channel using a mechanism with protrusions and a locking bar. However, Walker lacked ultrasonic measurement technology and a hermetically sealed housing. Drachmann ’311, in contrast, disclosed a modern ultrasonic consumption meter with its transducers and electronic circuit housed within a hermetically sealed casing to protect them from the environment.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references for two main reasons. First, Walker was technology-agnostic, stating its locking housing was for a "water meter or any other similar gauge," which invited the incorporation of modern measurement technologies like ultrasound. Second, it was well-known that electronic meters are delicate, and Drachmann ’311 explicitly taught that hermetically sealing the internal components was a known method for making such meters robust against water and dust.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because the combination involved placing a known self-contained electronic module (from Drachmann '311) into a known protective and lockable housing (from Walker). The internal workings of the meter do not affect the functionality of the external locking mechanism, making the integration predictable.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Rhodes and Drachmann ’250 - Claims 1, 6, 11, and 13 are obvious over Rhodes in view of Drachmann ’250.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Rhodes (WO 2007/020375) and Drachmann ’250 (European Patent Application Publication EP 2 083 250).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Rhodes disclosed an ultrasonic flowmeter with many claimed features, including a housing comprised of a cup and lid that is locked to a flow channel. However, in Rhodes, the primary electronics were in a sealed upper chamber, while the ultrasonic transducers were in a separate, unsealed lower compartment, connected by wires. Drachmann ’250 corrected this deficiency by teaching an ultrasonic meter where all components—the measuring means, electronic circuit, and display—are contained within a single, hermetically sealed casing.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to modify the design of Rhodes according to the teachings of Drachmann ’250 to improve reliability and environmental protection. Placing all sensitive components, including the transducers, into a single sealed chamber was a known and logical step to create a more robust and water-resistant device, eliminating the need for separate sealing of individual components as in Rhodes.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination would yield predictable results, as enclosing all electronic components of a meter in a single sealed housing was a common and well-understood design practice for achieving robustness.

Ground 3: Anticipation by Nielsen - Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are anticipated by Nielsen.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Nielsen (Application # 2012/0006127).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Nielsen disclosed every limitation of the challenged claims. Nielsen taught an ultrasonic flow meter unit with a flow channel, transducers, and an electronic circuit contained within a water-tight casing. This casing was described as being formed from a cup-like "common protection membrane" and a "top-part" (lid) that are sealed together, satisfying the housing limitations. The casing is locked to the flow channel via "bracing" secured by screws, which Petitioner contended met the "locking mechanism" limitation. Nielsen also explicitly disclosed that the meter could be a water meter (claim 6) or a gas meter (claim 7) and that the housing could have holes allowing the transducers to contact the media (claim 2).

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional grounds. These included obviousness challenges that built upon the primary combinations above by adding tertiary references to teach specific dependent claim features. For example, Marsh was added to teach a locking pin that moves perpendicular to the flow channel (claim 5), Buckberry was added to teach a pressure sensor (claim 9), and Walker was added to Nielsen to teach a parallel-moving locking pin with a tamper-evident seal (claims 4, 8, 12).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued for a specific construction of the term "seal" as used in claim 8 ("the at least one locking pin is secured by a seal").
• To distinguish it from the "hermetical seal" of the housing recited in claim 1, Petitioner contended that the "seal" of claim 8 should be construed as a "legal seal" or "tamper-evident seal." This construction was supported by the specification, which described a sealing means that "prevents extraction of the pin without leaving a visible trace."

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-13 of Patent 8,893,559 as unpatentable.