Interbulk USA, LLC d/b/a Interbulk Express v. GLOBAL STRATEGIES, INC.

1. Case Identification

• Patent #: 7,510,327
• Filed: June 5, 2018
• Petitioner(s): INTERBULK USA, LLC d/b/a INTERBULK EXPRESS
• Patent Owner(s): Global Strategies Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: High-Strength Ribbon-Woven Disposable Bag for Containing Refuse
• Brief Description: The '327 Patent is directed to a high-strength, disposable bag formed from woven polypropylene ribbons. The invention claims the bag is ultra-strong, tear-resistant, cut-resistant, and puncture-resistant, making it suitable for heavy-duty applications like carting away construction demolition products.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-12, 14, and 16 are obvious over Slawinski, Chen, Planeta ’665, and Abele.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Slawinski (Patent 4,205,611), Chen (Patent 5,830,119), Planeta ’665 (Patent 5,395,665), and Abele (Patent 4,505,201).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of references teaches all limitations of independent claim 1. Slawinski disclosed a strong bag made of woven polypropylene with a "10x10" weave, which Petitioner contended is equivalent to the "100 per inch" stitch count limitation. Both Slawinski and Chen taught bags made of woven ribbons without requiring bonding layers, meeting the "devoid of...bonding layers" limitation. Chen and Abele taught forming a bag from a tubular woven material and stitching one end closed. Dependent claims were allegedly met by specific teachings (e.g., Planeta '665 on ribbon dimensions), inherent properties of such a constructed bag (claims 4-11 reciting strength characteristics from the '327 patent's own testing table), or obvious dimensional choices (claim 16).
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references as they all address the same field of durable, woven bags for containing materials (explosives, mail, bulk goods). A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Slawinski's strong woven fabric with Chen's or Abele's well-known stitched closure method to create an economical and robust bag. It would be an obvious substitution of one known closure technique for another.
  • Expectation of Success: Combining known fabric types with known closure methods to produce a strong bag was a predictable design choice with a high expectation of success.

Ground 2: Claims 13 and 15 are obvious over Slawinski, Chen, Planeta ’665, Abele, and Planeta ’979.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Slawinski (Patent 4,205,611), Chen (Patent 5,830,119), Planeta ’665 (Patent 5,395,665), Abele (Patent 4,505,201), and Planeta ’979 (Patent 4,373,979).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1 to address claims requiring a liquid-tight layer. Petitioner asserted that Planeta ’979 was added for its explicit teaching of laminating a continuous plastic layer to the exterior of a woven bag (addressing claim 13) and using a hot melt adhesive to seal it (addressing claim 15). The base bag structure was provided by the other references as detailed in Ground 1.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to make the strong woven bag from the Ground 1 combination liquid-tight would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Planeta '979. Planeta '979 specifically addressed creating sealed bags from woven plastic and provided a clear method for applying an outer plastic layer to achieve this.
  • Expectation of Success: Applying a known lamination technique for waterproofing to a known woven bag structure would have a high and predictable expectation of success.

Ground 3: Claims 17-20 are obvious over Slawinski, Chen, Hansen, and Planeta ’665.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Slawinski (Patent 4,205,611), Chen (Patent 5,830,119), Hansen (Patent 5,251,761), and Planeta ’665 (Patent 5,395,665).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground challenged the method claims (17-20), which recite a method of "removing refuse having sharp points." The bag structure itself was taught by the combination of Slawinski, Chen, and Planeta ’665, as in Ground 1. Hansen was introduced for its explicit teaching of using rugged, woven polypropylene bags for handling recyclable materials, which are gathered, compacted, and transported, thus teaching the claimed use.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to use the strong bag described by Slawinski, Chen, and Planeta ’665 for the refuse disposal method taught by Hansen. Both the product and the method aimed to solve the identical problem of reliably containing sharp or heavy materials without rupture. The design considerations for bags containing explosives (Slawinski) or mail (Chen) were argued to be similar to those for bags containing refuse (Hansen).
  • Expectation of Success: Using a bag specifically designed and constructed to be strong and puncture-resistant for its intended purpose of containing refuse would have a clear expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "ribbons ... devoid of low melting temperature bonding layers between the crossed ribbons": Petitioner argued for a construction of "ribbons that do not necessarily incorporate layers of low melting temperature bonding layers." This was based on the fact that the ’327 patent specification is completely silent on bonding layers, and the negative limitation was added during prosecution solely to distinguish over prior art.
• "wherein the stitch count for said bag is 100 per inch": Petitioner argued for a construction of "100 per square inch." Petitioner contended that a linear stitch count of 100 per inch is physically inconsistent with the 3 to 6 mm ribbon width described in the patent. In contrast, a 10x10 weave (i.e., 10 threads per inch in both warp and weft directions), yielding 100 stitches per square inch, is technically feasible and explicitly taught by prior art (Slawinski) not considered during prosecution.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that institution is proper under §325(d) because the grounds presented are not the same or substantially the same as those considered during prosecution. Although some references (Planeta ’665, Abele, Hansen) were previously before the examiner, they are asserted here in new combinations with new primary references (Slawinski and Chen) that were never considered.
• Petitioner contended that Slawinski and Chen are not duplicative and are critical to the invalidity case. Specifically, Slawinski taught the "10x10" weave that meets the "100 per inch" limitation, a key feature upon which the patent was allowed, and both Slawinski and Chen teach bags without bonding layers. This undermined the Patent Owner's arguments during prosecution that such features were absent from the prior art of record.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested that the Board institute an inter partes review of claims 1-20 of the ’327 patent and find each challenged claim unpatentable.