Reckitt Benckiser LLC v. Gemak Trust

Prosecution History analysis

Examiner Search analysis

Invalidity Framework analysis

Petition

Petition Analysis

## 1. Case Identification
- Case #: [IPR2020-00184](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2020-00184)
- Patent #: 6,787,514
- Filed: November 26, 2019
- Petitioner(s): [Reckitt Benckiser LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/reckitt-benckiser-llc)
- Patent Owner(s): [Gemak Trust](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/gemak-trust)
- Challenged Claims: 1-8

## 2. Patent Overview
- Title: Detergent Product
- Brief Description: The [’514](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2020-00184/doc/1002) patent discloses a detergent composition containing a granulated percarbonate compound, which serves as a bleaching agent. To improve stability, the percarbonate is encapsulated in a blend comprising a sulfate, carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), and a nonionic surfactant, making it suitable for storage in water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) film packaging.

## 3. Grounds for Unpatentability
#### Ground 1A: Anticipation of Claims 1-4 - Claims 1-4 are anticipated by Baston under 35 U.S.C. §102.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Baston](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2020-00184/doc/1008) (International Publication No. WO1995/28467).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that Baston teaches every limitation of claims 1-4. Baston discloses detergent compositions with granulated sodium percarbonate (claim 2) and a means for delaying the release of this bleach by coating it. Petitioner asserted that Baston explicitly describes combining inorganic salt coating materials, including "alkali metal sulphates" (satisfying the "sulfate" and "sodium sulfate" limitations of claims 1, 3, and 4), with organic binder materials to form a "composite" coating. The disclosed binders include nonionic surfactants ("C10-C20 alcohol ethoxylates") and polymeric materials ("cellulose derivatives such as ... carboxymethylcellulose [CMC]"). Petitioner contended that Baston teaches combining all three components of the claimed blend to encapsulate percarbonate.
    - **Key Aspects:** The petition emphasized that Baston's disclosure of the composite coating, which allegedly contains all claimed elements, occurs within a single page, suggesting it is not a random combination of disparate teachings.

#### Ground 1B: Obviousness of Claims 5-7 - Claims 5-7 are obvious over Baston in view of Besse and/or Lagnemo under 35 U.S.C. §103.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** Baston (International Publication No. WO1995/28467), [Besse](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2020-00184/doc/1010) (International Publication No. WO1992/01037), and [Lagnemo](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2020-00184/doc/1009) (Patent 5,336,433).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** This ground built upon the teachings of Baston for the base composition of claim 1. Dependent claims 5-7 further require the nonionic surfactant to be a specific "alkyl (C6 to C12) aryl polyglycol ethoxylate." While Baston discloses a broader class of alcohol ethoxylates, Petitioner argued that both Besse and Lagnemo explicitly teach using this specific class of surfactants for encapsulating detergent components. Besse discloses "C6-12 alkyl phenol ethoxylates" as a preferred nonionic surfactant for its barrier coatings, and Lagnemo discloses "ethoxylates of ... alkyl phenols" as a preferred surfactant for coating percarbonate.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA), seeking to implement or optimize Baston's coating system, would have been motivated to use the specific surfactants taught by Besse and Lagnemo. These references presented a finite number of known, suitable options for nonionic surfactants to solve the same general problem of stabilizing detergent components.
    - **Expectation of Success:** A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in substituting the surfactants, as Besse and Lagnemo demonstrate their utility in similar coating applications, leading to predictable results.

#### Ground 1C: Obviousness of Claim 8 - Claim 8 is obvious over Baston in view of Besse and Falou under §103.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** Baston (International Publication No. WO1995/28467), Besse (International Publication No. WO1992/01037), and [Falou](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2020-00184/doc/1011) (Patent 5,160,654).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Independent claim 8 recites a "detergent product" with the same encapsulated percarbonate compound as claim 1, but positively includes the limitation that the compound is "enclosed by PVA film packaging." Petitioner asserted that while Baston teaches the encapsulated compound, the use of PVA film packaging for percarbonate-based detergents was well-known. Falou explicitly discloses a laundry sachet made from PVA film containing sodium percarbonate. Similarly, Besse teaches the benefits of packaging detergents in PVA film to protect film-degrading components.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would have been motivated to enclose Baston's stabilized percarbonate compound within the PVA film packaging taught by Falou and Besse. This combination would leverage the known stability benefits of Baston's coating with the known convenience and handling benefits of unit-dose PVA sachets.
    - **Expectation of Success:** The combination would be a simple application of known technologies to achieve predictable benefits, giving a POSITA a high expectation of success.

- **Additional Grounds:** Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 2) against claims 1-8 based on the combination of Baston in view of Besse, Lagnemo, and Falou, arguing this combination renders all claims obvious by supplying all allegedly missing limitations.

## 4. Key Claim Construction Positions
- Petitioner argued that the preamble language of claim 1, "for use in detergent products storable in PVA film packaging," is a non-limiting statement of intended use.
- The argument was based on the claim body reciting a structurally complete invention (the granulated compound). Petitioner noted that the Examiner reached the same conclusion during prosecution. This construction distinguishes claim 1 from claim 8, where the PVA packaging is a positive limitation in the body of the claim.

## 5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial
- Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under §325(d) because the Examiner never cited or relied upon the key prior art references of Baston or Besse during prosecution.
- It was argued that the asserted art is not cumulative to the art the Examiner considered ([Le Nigen](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2020-00184/doc/1018) and [Garner-Gray](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2020-00184/doc/1016)). The Examiner allowed the claims because Le Nigen and Garner-Gray allegedly failed to teach the encapsulation of percarbonate in the specific claimed blend. Baston and Besse, however, allegedly teach these very limitations.
- Petitioner contended that the mere inclusion of Baston and Besse in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) as part of a PCT search report does not mean the Examiner substantively considered them, and thus the petition raises new arguments and art that warrant review.

## 6. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-8 of the ’514 patent as unpatentable.

Reckitt Benckiser challenges detergent patent: Baston prior art cited for anticipation & obviousness of all 8 claims on bleach encapsulation.