PTAB

IPR2020-01636

SEko Spa v. CM2W JSC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: ADAPTIVE DOSING SYSTEM
  • Brief Description: The ’263 patent discloses a remotely monitored, controlled, and adjusted adaptive dosing system. The system uses a control module connected to sensors and pumps, and a communication module that links to a cloud application and database server via the Internet for remote management.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Means and Binder - Claims 1-20 are obvious over Means in view of Binder.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Means (Application # 2005/0166961) and Binder (Application # 2013/0201316).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Means and Binder disclosed all limitations of the challenged claims. Means was presented as teaching a closed-loop additive injection system for oilfield operations that includes the core components of the ’263 patent: a local controller, flow meters (sensors), and pumps. The Means system monitors flow rates and controls additive supply from a remote location via a two-way communication link. Petitioner asserted that Means taught key functionalities recited in independent claim 1, including automatically adjusting pump operation to correct deviations from operational parameters and interrupting dosing upon an "uncorrectable error." Specifically, Petitioner pointed to the disclosure in Means of turning off a malfunctioning pump and activating a redundant one as meeting the limitation of stopping the pump upon an uncorrectable error, and then sending an alert to a remote attendant.

    • Petitioner argued that while Means disclosed remote control, it did so using older data links (e.g., EIA-232), not the Internet. To supply this element, Petitioner relied on Binder, which disclosed a system for controlling various apparatus (including fluid pumps) over the Internet using a remote server. Binder was asserted to teach a control loop where a remote server receives sensor data from field units and sends actuator commands back via the Internet. The combination, Petitioner argued, rendered the claimed system obvious by simply updating the known remote-control dosing system of Means with the modern, Internet-based communication and server architecture taught by Binder. Petitioner further mapped elements from Means and Binder to the limitations of the various dependent claims, such as the use of microcontrollers, non-volatile memory, and real-time clocks, arguing these were all well-known components of such systems.

    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Means and Binder because they address analogous problems of remote monitoring and control of closed-loop systems. A POSITA would have been motivated to replace the older, dedicated communication links taught in Means with the more versatile and ubiquitous Internet-based communication taught by Binder to improve the system's connectivity and accessibility, which was a known and commonplace technological upgrade.

    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because adapting existing electronic communication systems to use the Internet was a well-established and routine practice at the time of the invention, yielding predictable results.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’263 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.