First Quality Baby Products LLC v. Kimberly Clark Worldwide Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-00519
• Patent #: 8,556,877
• Filed: January 19, 2018
• Petitioner(s): First Quality Baby Products, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-28

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Training Pant with Refastenable, Pop-Open Resistant Seams
• Brief Description: The ’877 patent discloses a method for constructing an absorbent training pant with refastenable side seams designed to resist accidental "pop-opens." The invention focuses on placing fastening components on portions of the side panels located between substantially parallel straight sections of the waist and leg end edges, thereby avoiding angled or curved areas identified as "concentrated stress points" that occur when a wearer moves.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Fletcher - Claims 1, 4-9, 13-17, 19, 21-23, and 28 are anticipated by Fletcher under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Fletcher (International Publication No. WO 00/37009).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Fletcher, a prior art publication by the Patent Owner, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Fletcher describes a training pant designed to be "resistant to accidental disengagement" by placing refastenable seams in a location "least subject to movements of the wearer." Its design explicitly shows side panels with a straight waist end edge and a leg end edge comprising both a straight portion and an angled portion. Crucially, Fletcher places its fastening components on the side panels between the parallel straight portions of the waist and leg edges, directly corresponding to the inventive concept of the ’877 patent. Petitioner asserted that Fletcher’s figures and description teach the same structure to solve the same pop-open problem, thus anticipating the claims.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Fletcher - Claims 2-3, 10-12, 18, 20, and 26-27 are obvious over Fletcher.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Fletcher (WO 00/37009).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that the limitations added in these dependent claims represented obvious design choices or simple modifications of Fletcher's disclosed training pant. For claims 2-3, which require specific width ratios (e.g., parallel portions at least 1.2 or 1.5 times the fastener width), Fletcher’s drawings depict this relationship, and the explicit dimensions provided would lead a POSITA to these ratios. For claims 10-12 (fasteners extending past a distal edge), Petitioner argued this was an obvious modification to reduce material costs while maintaining the size of the leg and waist openings. For claims 18 and 20 (non-perpendicular distal edges), Fletcher teaches using angled seams is possible, and a POSITA would simply make the distal edge of the panel parallel to the angled fastener to eliminate loose flaps and achieve a more "garment-like" appearance, a stated goal in the art.
  • Motivation to Combine: Not applicable for a single-reference obviousness ground. The motivations were inherent in improving Fletcher's own design for reasons of cost, fit, or aesthetics.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in making these minor dimensional and geometric adjustments, as they involved predictable mechanical principles and known manufacturing techniques to achieve well-understood benefits.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Fletcher in view of Allen - Claims 24-25 are obvious over Fletcher in view of Allen.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Fletcher (WO 00/37009) and Allen (Patent 6,149,637).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims 24-25, which require the side panels to be stretchable in non-parallel or multiple directions. Petitioner argued that Fletcher discloses side panels that stretch only in the transverse direction. Allen, however, explicitly teaches a training pant with an elastomeric lamina that stretches in multiple directions ("all directions") to solve the problem of poor fit and leakage. Allen explains that multi-directional stretch allows the pant to conform better to the wearer’s body contours.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Allen’s multi-directional stretch material with Fletcher's pant design to address a known deficiency. Fletcher’s pant, with only transverse stretch, would fit loosely around the hips and be prone to leakage. Allen directly addresses this problem by teaching a material that provides a snugger fit. Therefore, a POSITA seeking to improve the fit and leakage prevention of the Fletcher design would look to known solutions like the elastic material taught by Allen.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. Allen provides a detailed "roadmap" for making its elastic lamina, and incorporating such a material into the side panels of a disposable pant was a well-known technique in the field of absorbent articles.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued for a specific construction of the "Transverse Overlap Limitation" found in claim 1: "forming the at least one refastenable seam to include a transverse overlap wider than a transverse width of the smaller fastening component."
• Petitioner proposed this should be interpreted to mean that the portions of the front and back side panels that physically overlap one another are transversely wider than the smaller of the two fastening components. This construction was critical to the anticipation argument, as it allowed Petitioner to rely on the depicted width of the overlapping panel structure in Fletcher, rather than requiring Fletcher to explicitly state a width dimension for the "seam" itself.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-28 of Patent 8,556,877 as unpatentable.