Bedgear LLC v. Sheex Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2016-00715
• Patent #: 8,402,580
• Filed: March 6, 2016
• Petitioner(s): Bedgear, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Sheex, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-14, 18, and 19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Bedding from Joined Circular Knit Performance Fabrics
• Brief Description: The ’580 patent discloses bed sheets and coverings made by joining two or more discrete portions of circular knit "performance fabric," which typically includes elastic fibers like spandex. This method purports to solve the problem of manufacturing single, wide sheets of such fabric, as they allegedly tend to sag and interfere with finishing processes when produced at widths greater than 90 inches.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over APA and Haggerty - Claims 1-14, 18, and 19 are obvious over the Admitted Prior Art in view of Haggerty.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Admitted Prior Art ("APA") from the specification of the ’580 patent and Haggerty (Patent 7,200,883).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the APA, derived from admissions in the ’580 patent itself, discloses all key features of the claimed "performance fabric," including that it is circular knit at a high gauge (17+ gauges) and possesses the inherent properties of elasticity and sag. Petitioner asserted that Haggerty supplies the only allegedly missing element: the concept of forming wide bed sheets (over 90 inches) by joining two discrete fabric sections along their edges. Haggerty explicitly teaches bi-sectional bed sheets, including for king-size beds, constructed by seaming two different fabric portions together.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to combine these teachings to achieve a predictable result. Haggerty provides an explicit reason by teaching the benefits of bi-sectional sheets, such as providing differential warming characteristics to different bed occupants. Applying Haggerty’s commonplace joining technique to the known performance fabrics described in the APA was argued to be a simple and obvious design choice to create wider bedding.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying a conventional fabric joining method (from Haggerty) to a known type of fabric (from the APA) to achieve a desired size.

Ground 2: Obviousness over APA, Haggerty, and Fleissner - Claims 1-14, 18, and 19 are obvious over the APA in view of Haggerty and further in view of Fleissner.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: APA, Haggerty (Patent 7,200,883), and Fleissner (Patent 3,696,475).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative, arguing that if the APA and Haggerty combination were deemed insufficient to teach the specific "sag" limitations of claim 1 (i.e., that sag interferes with finishing above a certain width), Fleissner explicitly teaches this concept. Fleissner describes finishing processes for knit fabrics and expressly identifies that material "sags between the tentering chains," causing distortions, a problem that is particularly disadvantageous when treating "very wide webs of material."
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that a POSITA seeking to finish the knit performance fabrics of the APA would naturally consult a reference like Fleissner, which addresses common finishing machinery and problems. Fleissner’s teachings on sag in wide knit fabrics would have been directly relevant and obvious to apply to the fabrics of the APA, confirming the inherent properties claimed in the ’580 patent.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Stewart and Fleissner - Claims 1-14, 18, and 19 are obvious over Stewart in view of Fleissner.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Stewart (Application # 2005/0284189) and Fleissner (Patent 3,696,475).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Stewart teaches circular-knit bed sheets made from performance fabrics containing spandex and discloses using customary methods like cutting and sewing, implying the joining of fabric portions. As in Ground 2, Fleissner was relied upon to explicitly teach the claimed "sag" characteristics. Petitioner argued that the combination of Stewart and Fleissner teaches every limitation of the challenged claims.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Stewart and Fleissner because Stewart teaches that its fabrics may be used with "any desired finishing treatment(s)." This would directly motivate a skilled artisan to consult references like Fleissner that detail such finishing processes and their associated challenges, including fabric sag. The combination would make it obvious that Stewart's elastic fabrics would exhibit the sag properties described by Fleissner, especially at wider widths.
  • Expectation of Success: Combining the known fabric from Stewart with the well-understood finishing principles from Fleissner would lead to the predictable understanding that wider versions of Stewart's fabric would sag and interfere with finishing.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued for a specific construction of the claim phrase "performance fabric having an elasticity such that the performance fabric has a tendency to sag ... if the performance fabric were circularly knit at greater than a 72.5 inch circumference."
• Proposed Construction: "a fabric with elastic fibers that would have too much sag and interfere with a finishing process if it is high-gauge circularly knit wider than 72.5 inches."
• Importance: This proposed construction was central to Petitioner's argument that the claim limitations do not describe a novel invention but rather recite the well-known, inherent properties of existing spandex-based fabrics, which were admitted as prior art.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests that the Board institute an inter partes review and cancel claims 1-14, 18, and 19 of Patent 8,402,580 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.