Gillette Co v. ShaveLogic Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2016-00699
• Patent #: 8,789,282
• Filed: March 10, 2016
• Petitioner(s): The Gillette Company
• Patent Owner(s): Robert A. Wilson, Craig A. Provost, and John W. Griffin
• Challenged Claims: 1-6

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Shaving System
• Brief Description: The ’282 patent discloses a shaving system featuring a handle and a removable shaving assembly (cartridge). The connection between the handle and assembly is achieved through a combination of a magnetic attachment system and a mechanical interface.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground I: Obviousness over Jian and Ohtsubo - Claims 1-6 are obvious over Jian in view of Ohtsubo.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Jian (China Application # 101612740) and Ohtsubo (Patent 6,886,262).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Jian taught the fundamental shaving system of claim 1, including a handle with a protruding appendage, a planar rim surface surrounding the appendage, and a shaving assembly with an interface element that mounts on the appendage via both mechanical and magnetic connections. However, Jian did not explicitly teach the specific handle geometry claimed: a planar rim surface disposed at an angle of 10-20 degrees relative to the handle's axis and a handle body curved in a single direction. Petitioner asserted that Ohtsubo, which teaches modifying razor handle geometry for improved ergonomics, supplied these missing elements. Ohtsubo disclosed a handle with a curved region and an angle between the gripping section and the shave plane of 11-33 degrees, which overlaps with and suggests the claimed range.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to improve the ergonomics and shaving performance of the system disclosed in Jian. Ohtsubo explicitly taught that modifying handle geometry, including the angle and curvature, could bring the user's hand closer to the face, improving the shave. Therefore, it would have been a simple and predictable substitution to apply Ohtsubo’s ergonomic handle design to Jian’s connection mechanism to achieve a more comfortable and effective razor.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because combining the references involved the simple substitution of one known handle shape (Ohtsubo's) for another (Jian's) to achieve the predictable result of improved ergonomics without altering the function of the connection mechanism.

Ground II: Obviousness over Jian, Ohtsubo, and Murgida - Claim 4 is obvious over Jian in view of Ohtsubo and Murgida.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Jian (China Application # 101612740), Ohtsubo (Patent 6,886,262), and Murgida (Application # 2011/0016724).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Ground I to specifically address dependent claim 4, which required a pivoting connection allowing for a handle rotation of approximately 15-105 degrees. Petitioner contended that the base combination of Jian and Ohtsubo already taught a pivoting connection, with Ohtsubo disclosing a pivot range of 0-45 degrees. To arrive at the full claimed range, Petitioner introduced Murgida, which taught a shaving system with a blade housing that pivots through a range of 0-110 degrees.
  • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was to incorporate a well-known feature—a wide range of pivotal motion—into the base shaving system to enhance its ability to follow the contours of a user's skin. Since providing a pivoting cartridge was a common design goal in the art, a POSITA would have looked to references like Murgida to understand and implement a desirable pivot range, making its inclusion an obvious design choice.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected as it involved incorporating a known pivot mechanism (Murgida) into another known shaving system (Jian/Ohtsubo) to achieve the predictable function of improved contour-following during shaving.

Ground III: Obviousness over Jian, Ohtsubo, and Nagy/Schaefer - Claims 1-6 are obvious over Jian and Ohtsubo in view of Nagy or Schaefer.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Jian (China Application # 101612740), Ohtsubo (Patent 6,886,262), Nagy (Patent 7,134,368), and Schaefer (Application # 2012/0036658).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative to address potential deficiencies in Ground I. Specifically, if Jian were deemed not to teach a magnetic system with "planar surfaces configured for face-to-face contact" or a sufficiently robust mechanical engagement, Nagy and Schaefer supplied these features. Nagy, a screwdriver with a removable bit, taught a magnetic holder and bit with planar surfaces in face-to-face contact for magnetic retention. Schaefer, an electric toothbrush, similarly taught magnetic attachment elements with planar contact surfaces. Both also taught self-locking mechanical interconnections to secure the working piece during use.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that Nagy and Schaefer were analogous art because they addressed the same problem: providing a secure and reliable connection for a removable working piece on a handheld device. A POSITA seeking to improve the magnetic retention force and mechanical stability of the Jian/Ohtsubo razor would be motivated to incorporate the planar magnetic surfaces and self-locking mechanisms from Nagy or Schaefer to create a more robust connection, as this would predictably maximize magnetic force and prevent unintended detachment.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges for claim 4 based on combinations including Murgida with Nagy or Schaefer, relying on similar design modification theories to meet every limitation.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "longitudinal axis of inertia of the handle": Petitioner argued this term lacked a standard meaning in the art. Based on the patent's specification and figures, Petitioner proposed it should be construed as "an axis that extends longitudinally generally through the center of the gripping portion of the handle."
• "configured to/configured for": Petitioner asserted this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, as "to arrange for a particular function or use."
• "magnet" and "ferrous element": Based on the specification, Petitioner argued "magnet" should mean "any magnetic material" and "ferrous element" should mean "any material that is attracted to a magnet," provided they supply an adequate magnetic force.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-6 of the ’282 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.