Bedgear LLC v. Sheex Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2016-00716
• Patent #: 8,566,982
• Filed: March 7, 2016
• Petitioner(s): Bedgear, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Sheex, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-17

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Bed Sheet Formed from Performance Fabric
• Brief Description: The ’982 patent is directed to methods of making bed coverings, specifically bed sheets, by forming and joining at least two discrete portions of fabric. The invention centers on using circular knit "performance fabrics" with high elasticity to create a finished fabric or bed sheet that is at least 90 inches wide, overcoming the manufacturing width limitations of such fabrics.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over APA and Haggerty - Claims 1-17 are obvious over Admitted Prior Art in view of Haggerty.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Admitted Prior Art (“APA”) from the ’982 patent specification and Haggerty (Patent 7,200,883).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the APA, consisting of admissions within the ’982 patent itself, teaches most of the claimed elements. Specifically, the APA acknowledges the well-known use of high-gauge, circular knit elastic performance fabrics (containing spandex) for various products, including bedding. The primary distinction, Petitioner asserted, was the step of joining multiple fabric portions to create a finished sheet at least 90 inches wide. Petitioner contended that Haggerty explicitly teaches this missing step. Haggerty discloses "bi-sectional bed sheets" made by joining two different fabric sections along their edges to form finished sheets, including king-size versions that are over 90 inches wide (e.g., 108 inches).
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the teachings to address the known width limitations of elastic performance fabrics. Since the APA acknowledged that these fabrics could not be produced in a single wide panel suitable for king-size beds, a POSITA would have looked to known solutions for creating wide fabrics. Haggerty’s method of joining narrower fabric panels provided a simple and logical solution to apply to the performance fabrics described in the APA.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because the combination merely involved applying a conventional and predictable manufacturing technique (stitching fabric panels together) to a known type of fabric to achieve a desired dimension.

Ground 2: Obviousness over APA, Haggerty, and Fleissner - Claims 1-17 are obvious over Admitted Prior Art in view of Haggerty and 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 a supplement to Ground 1, specifically targeting the claim limitations regarding fabric "sag" that were added during prosecution. Petitioner argued that even if the APA and Haggerty did not explicitly teach these properties, Fleissner did. Fleissner is directed to finishing knit fabrics and describes using tentering devices to hold the fabric. It expressly teaches that a key problem is that the "material sags between the tentering chains," particularly with wider "sensitive knit fabric[s]," and that this sagging causes distortions that interfere with the finishing process. This directly maps to the claim limitations requiring a performance fabric with a "tendency to sag" that would "interfere with the finishing process" if knit above a certain width (e.g., 72.5 inches).
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA working with the performance knit fabrics of the APA would consult a reference like Fleissner, which addresses common problems and machinery used in the finishing process for such fabrics. Because both the APA and Fleissner describe similar finishing processes involving heat and tentering, Fleissner’s teachings on the inherent problem of sag would have been directly relevant and applicable.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Stewart and Fleissner - Claims 1-17 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 contended that Stewart teaches nearly all claim limitations, as it is directed to a "Circular-Knit Bed Sheet" and discloses using circular-knit fabrics that include spandex. Stewart further teaches that finished sheets are made using "customary methods and equipment, including...cutting and sewing," implying that multiple pieces could be joined. To the extent Stewart does not explicitly teach the specific "sag" limitations, Petitioner again relied on Fleissner to provide this teaching. As in Ground 2, Fleissner's disclosure of sagging in wide knit fabrics during finishing processes was argued to supply the limitations added during prosecution.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Stewart and Fleissner because Stewart teaches that its fabrics could be processed using "any desired finishing treatment(s)." This broad teaching would naturally lead a POSITA to investigate references like Fleissner that detail such finishing processes and their known challenges. Fleissner’s disclosure of sag as a known issue in finishing wide knit fabrics would be an obvious consideration when applying finishing treatments to the elastic fabrics of Stewart.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued for a specific construction of the lengthy limitation reciting the fabric's elasticity and tendency to sag: "performance fabric having an elasticity such that the performance fabric has a tendency to sag by an amount that is greater than a threshold amount of sag determined by a finishing process, such that the sag would interfere with the finishing process if the performance fabric were circularly knit at greater than a 72.5 inch circumference."
• Proposed Construction: Petitioner proposed that this limitation should be construed to mean: "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."
• This construction was central to Petitioner's argument that these sag properties were not a novel feature of the invention but were well-known, inherent characteristics of the prior art spandex-based performance fabrics described by the APA, Fleissner, and Stewart.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-17 of the ’982 patent as unpatentable.