Bestway USA Inc v. Intex Marketing Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2017-01397
• Patent #: 8,562,773
• Filed: May 12, 2017
• Petitioner(s): Bestway (USA), Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Intex Marketing Ltd.
• Challenged Claims: 1-5

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method for Producing a Tensioning Structure of an Inflatable Product
• Brief Description: The ’773 patent describes a manufacturing method for creating internal tensioning structures used in inflatable products like air mattresses. The method involves joining a pair of plastic strips to spaced-apart strands (e.g., strings or wires) to create a lightweight internal support structure that helps the product maintain its shape when inflated.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Pennel - Claims 1, 3, and 4 are anticipated by Pennel under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Pennel (Patent 3,683,431).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Pennel taught every element of the challenged claims. Independent claim 1 recites a five-step method for producing a tensioning structure. Petitioner asserted that Pennel's machine for creating "ties" for inflatable mattresses performed this exact method. Pennel's "thread guides" (31a, 31b) met the "aligning a plurality of strands with a strand guide" limitation. Pennel's four "bands" (6, 7, 12, and 13) were mapped to the claimed first, second, third, and fourth "weld strips." Pennel's process of feeding these bands and threads through pressure rollers (64, 66) to be crushed together met the limitation of "activating the welder or adhesive device" to fixedly connect the strips and strands. Dependent claims 3 and 4, which add coupling the structure to the interior surfaces of an inflatable product, were allegedly disclosed by Pennel's description of adhering the resulting "ties" to the top and bottom walls of a pneumatic mattress.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Stutz, Greiner, and Pennel - Claims 1-5 are obvious over Stutz in view of Greiner and in further view of Pennel under 35 U.S.C. §103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Stutz (Patent 3,379,596), Greiner (Patent 3,030,245), and Pennel (Patent 3,683,431).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Stutz and Greiner taught methods of manufacturing reinforced, non-woven fabrics, and Pennel taught using such fabrics as tensioning structures in inflatable products. Stutz disclosed an apparatus for arranging fibers in a grid form by placing weft fibers on both sides of aligned warp fibers and bonding them. Petitioner argued Stutz’s table (11) or Greiner's guide ring and comb (74, 76) taught the "strand guide." Stutz’s weft fibers, placed on both sides of the warp fibers and at spaced intervals, were argued to teach the four "weld strips." The combination's use of an evaporator (Stutz) or calendar roll (Greiner) met the "activating the welder" step. Pennel supplied the final step of using the resulting material as a tensioning structure inside an inflatable product and cutting it to the desired length (addressing dependent claims 2-5).
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references because they are all in the same field of manufacturing strong, lightweight, non-woven materials. A POSITA would have been motivated to use the fabric-making methods of Stutz and Greiner to create the tensioning structures for inflatable products taught by Pennel. It would have been obvious to substitute Stutz's narrow weft "fibers" with the wider "strips" from Greiner or "bands" from Pennel. This modification would be a simple design choice to create a larger bonding area, resulting in a stronger structure that is easier to attach to the interior walls of an inflatable product, a benefit explicitly taught by Pennel.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in combining these teachings, as it involved applying known fabric manufacturing techniques (Stutz, Greiner) to a known end-use (Pennel) to achieve predictable improvements in strength and ease of assembly.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "strand guide": Petitioner argued for the broadest reasonable interpretation, defining it as any apparatus that aligns individual strands relative to each other to provide a desired arrangement. This construction was asserted to be consistent with the specification and the examiner’s findings during prosecution, allowing it to cover structures like the alignment table in Stutz and the comb in Greiner.
• "weld strip": Petitioner contended this term should be construed according to the patentee's explicit definition: "any strip of material suitable for affixation to another material." This broad construction would not limit the strip's dimensions, allowing it to encompass the narrow "weft fibers" disclosed in Stutz, which was critical to the obviousness argument. Petitioner noted that the specification allows for the "strands" and "strips" to have the same width.
• "activating the welder or adhesive device": Petitioner argued this phrase should be interpreted broadly to include any method of joining, such as the application of heat, adhesive, or mechanical pressure, consistent with the patent's definition of "weld strip." This allowed the term to cover the pressure rollers in Pennel and the heating evaporators or calendar rolls in Stutz and Greiner.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-5 of the ’773 patent as unpatentable.