Asetek Danmark AS v. CoolIT Systems Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2020-00747
• Patent #: 9,057,567
• Filed: March 26, 2020
• Petitioner(s): Asetek Danmark A/S
• Patent Owner(s): CoolIT Systems, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-3, 5, 7, 25, and 28

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Heat Exchange System
• Brief Description: The ’567 patent discloses a heat exchange system for the liquid cooling of electronic components. The technology centers on a heat sink with microchannels that utilizes a "split-flow" arrangement, where liquid coolant is introduced midway along the microchannels and flows in opposite directions toward outlets at either end.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Bezama - Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 25, and 28 are anticipated by Bezama

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Bezama (Application # 2010/0012294).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Bezama discloses every element of the challenged claims in its description of a microchannel-based cooler assembly. Specifically, Petitioner mapped Bezama’s tapered fin regions, which allow fluid to be coupled into the microchannels, to the claimed "recessed groove." Further, Petitioner contended that Bezama’s "separator sheet," described as being made of a "compliant, flexible material" placed over the fins, directly teaches the claimed "compliant member." Bezama’s separator sheet includes an elongate opening that overlays the tapered fin regions (the groove) to form an inlet manifold, and its "cover" with a recessed underside functions as the claimed "housing member."

Ground 2: Obviousness over Lyon in view of Bezama - Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 25, and 28 are obvious over Lyon in view of Bezama

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Lyon (Application # 2009/0071625) and Bezama (Application # 2010/0012294).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Lyon discloses a split-flow microchannel heat exchanger that meets most claim limitations, including a heat sink, microchannels, and a housing. However, Lyon utilizes a rigid plate to cover the microchannels and does not disclose a recessed groove on the fins. Petitioner argued that Bezama supplies these missing elements.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the teachings of Lyon and Bezama to improve performance and reduce manufacturing complexity. Bezama explicitly teaches that a compliant member (separator sheet) improves sealing, prevents coolant bypass, and eliminates the need for costly, high-precision fin height tolerances that would be required with a rigid plate like Lyon’s. Additionally, Bezama teaches that creating a recessed groove by tapering the fins reduces pressure drop and improves flow uniformity. Since Lyon itself acknowledges the goal of reducing pressure drop, a POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Bezama's groove feature into Lyon’s design.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in making these modifications. Bezama provides express teachings on the advantages and implementation of both the compliant member and the recessed groove. Combining these known elements to modify Lyon’s system would be a matter of routine engineering to achieve predictable results.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• “[inlet/exhaust] manifold”: Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a region out from which or into which several smaller channels lead." This construction was argued to be consistent with engineering dictionaries and the patent’s specification, which distinguishes the "manifold" from the separately recited "plenum" (a larger collection space).
• “opening positioned over the groove”: Petitioner proposed this phrase be construed as "a passage through the entire thickness of the compliant member substantially over the length of the groove." Petitioner argued this construction is necessary to achieve the patent's stated goal of hydraulically coupling microchannels in parallel. This position was supported by the prosecution history, where the examiner allowed the claims based on an understanding that the opening extended over every fin.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Effective Filing Date: A central contention of the petition was that the ’567 patent is not entitled to its claimed priority date of August 9, 2007. Petitioner argued that the two key features recited in the independent claims—a "recessed groove extending transversely" and a "compliant member"—lacked written description support in the 2007 provisional and its subsequent non-provisional application. These elements were allegedly first disclosed in a 2011 provisional application. Therefore, Petitioner contended the challenged claims have an effective filing date of July 27, 2011, making both Bezama (published 2010) and Lyon (published 2009) valid prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 25, and 28 of Patent 9,057,567 as unpatentable.