Bedgear LLC v. Sheex Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: Case To Be Assigned (IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,402,580)
• Patent #: 8,402,580
• Filed: March 7, 2016
• Petitioner(s): Bedgear, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Sheex, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-14, 18, and 19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Bed Coverings from Circular Knit Performance Fabrics
• Brief Description: The ’580 patent relates to bed sheets and coverings formed by joining at least two discrete portions of circular knit performance fabric. This method purports to create a finished fabric at least 90 inches wide, overcoming the inherent width limitations of elastic performance fabrics which tend to sag and lose integrity when knit at wider dimensions, interfering with finishing processes.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

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

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Haggerty (Patent 7,200,883), Stewart (Application # 2005/0284189), and Fleissner (Patent 3,696,475).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Haggerty taught constructing bi-sectional bed sheets wider than 90 inches by joining two discrete fabric portions along their edges. Stewart taught manufacturing bed sheets from circular-knit performance fabrics that could include spandex. The combination of Haggerty and Stewart allegedly taught joining two pieces of Stewart's performance fabric to create Haggerty's wide, multi-section sheet. Fleissner was introduced to explicitly teach the limitations related to fabric sag, as it described problems with "sensitive knit fabric[s]" sagging during finishing processes like tentering, especially at wider widths.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Haggerty and Stewart to create a bed sheet that incorporated the benefits of both references: the differential warming characteristics from Haggerty's multi-section design and the superior cooling and elastic properties of Stewart's performance fabrics. This combination was also presented as a straightforward solution to the well-known problem of manufacturing wide performance fabrics. A POSITA would look to Fleissner to understand and address the known issue of fabric sag during the finishing processes taught by Stewart.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that combining known fabric types (Stewart) with a known bed sheet construction (Haggerty) using conventional sewing techniques would predictably yield a functional finished fabric at least 90 inches wide.

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

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Haggerty (Patent 7,200,883) and Laycock (Patent 7,117,695).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Similar to the first ground, Petitioner contended that Haggerty provided the foundational teaching of joining two discrete fabric sections to form a bed sheet wider than 90 inches. Laycock was cited for teaching the specific fabric claimed: circular-knit, high-gauge (e.g., 24 and 28 gauge) performance fabrics containing spandex (Lycra). Critically, Laycock also allegedly taught that the properties of spandex could render the fabric "inappropriate for subsequent cut and sew operations," thus disclosing the claimed limitations regarding fabric sag interfering with finishing processes.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to substitute the high-performance, circular-knit spandex fabric of Laycock into the bi-sectional bed sheet design of Haggerty. The goal would be to produce a wide bed sheet that possessed the enhanced comfort, feel, elasticity, and recovery performance characteristics described in Laycock, while also providing the differential warming properties taught by Haggerty.
  • Expectation of Success: The proposed combination was framed as a simple substitution of one known fabric type for another within a conventional product design. Petitioner argued this would have involved nothing more than applying routine skill to achieve a predictable and successful result.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued for a specific construction of the limitations in independent claim 1 related to elasticity and sag (limitations [B2] and [B3]).
• The proposed "broadest reasonable interpretation" for these limitations was: "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 critical to the Petitioner's arguments because it framed these claim limitations not as a novel feature, but as a description of a well-known problem inherent to spandex-based performance fabrics—a problem the prior art allegedly recognized and addressed.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-14, 18, and 19 of Patent 8,402,580 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.