Tri Arc LLC v. Safe Rack LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2020-01566
• Patent #: 10,358,871
• Filed: September 2, 2020
• Petitioner(s): Tri-Arc LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Safe Rack LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-13

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Platform System
• Brief Description: The ’871 patent relates to a modular platform system comprising at least two interchangeable modules that connect to form a horizontal platform. The connection between modules is unsupported from below, and the system includes supports at its ends and removable handrails.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 11-13 are anticipated by GTM; Claims 1-9 and 11-13 are obvious over GTM.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: GTM (German Utility Model No. DE 203 05 795 U1).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that GTM, which describes a modular platform system for accessing walk-in containers, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. GTM allegedly teaches a horizontal platform made of multiple modular, interchangeable walkway elements connected via bolts. Petitioner contended GTM’s system is supported by vertical stands at either end of a span of modules, with the connecting structure between modules supporting the load without a support directly underneath. GTM also discloses removable handrails attached to the sides of the modules. For dependent claims, GTM was argued to disclose bolts and nuts, stairways, and U-shaped handrails.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): For claims not directly anticipated (e.g., claims 3-4 requiring elongate slots), Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to modify GTM’s connection holes to be elongate slots. This would be a well-known technique to provide greater tolerance and ease of assembly, consistent with GTM’s goal of creating a system that can be assembled "without any problems."
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in using elongate slots, as it was a common and predictable solution for improving alignment in structural assemblies.

Ground 2: Claims 1-13 are obvious over Shaifer in view of Alco-Lite.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Shaifer (Patent 5,210,988) and Alco-Lite (an industrial products catalog from 2006).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted Shaifer discloses a modular platform system with square, interchangeable modules that connect on all four sides to create a load-bearing platform spanning between supports, thereby teaching the core unsupported connection feature. However, Shaifer uses complex "vertical walls" for fall protection instead of handrails. Alco-Lite, a catalog for access equipment, discloses standard, removable handrails with integrated midrails and toeboards that attach to modular platforms using bolts.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Shaifer and Alco-Lite to replace Shaifer’s complex vertical walls with Alco-Lite’s simpler, standard handrails. This modification would retain the safety benefits of an edge barrier while advancing Shaifer’s stated goal of reducing system complexity by eliminating the need for specially notched platform modules required to mount the walls.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as the combination merely involved attaching a standard safety component (handrail) to a modular platform using a conventional method (bolting), which was well within the ordinary skill in the art.

Ground 3: Claims 1-13 are obvious over Daniel in view of Shaifer.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Daniel (Patent 6,085,867) and Shaifer (Patent 5,210,988).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Daniel teaches a modular platform system with most claimed features, including supports, stairs, and removable handrails. However, Daniel achieves different platform lengths by using multiple types of single, pre-sized rectangular platform units (e.g., square, double-long, quadruple-long), rather than by connecting smaller, identical modules. Shaifer teaches the use of a single type of square, interchangeable module that can be connected to form platforms of any desired length without intermediate supports.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would be motivated to modify Daniel’s system to achieve its stated goal of reducing complexity and increasing standardization. The combination replaces Daniel’s inventory-intensive system of multiple, differently-sized platforms with Shaifer’s more versatile single, standardized square module. This allows for the construction of platforms of any length, simplifying logistics and manufacturing.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success would be expected because both Daniel and Shaifer disclose similar side-connection arrangements (holes for bolting). Adapting Shaifer’s modules to attach to Daniel’s handrails and stairs would be a straightforward application of well-known engineering principles.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claim 10 over GTM in view of Daniel, arguing Daniel taught the claimed "single, continuous piece" construction for a U-shaped handrail.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• “connecting structure”: Petitioner proposed this term means “the interface where the first and second modular platforms engage.” This construction was argued to be critical for understanding the limitation that the platform supports a load “without a support structure under the connecting structure,” a key feature allegedly present in the prior art.
• “for receipt of elongate fasteners”: Petitioner argued this limitation in claim 2 recites an intended use and only requires that the apertures be structurally capable of receiving fasteners, not that they must be used.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d) was inappropriate. It contended that the petition raised new combinations of prior art (including non-cumulative references GTM and Shaifer) and arguments that were materially different from those considered by the examiner during prosecution, thus weighing in favor of institution.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-13 of Patent 10,358,871 as unpatentable.