PTAB

IPR2021-00007

CeLLPak Inc v. Mambate USA Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: LED Camping Lantern with Ceiling Fan
  • Brief Description: The ’728 patent claims the ornamental design for a portable LED camping lantern. The design features an upper body containing a light source, a pivoting handle with an integrated hook on top, and a downward-facing ceiling fan integrated into the base of the unit.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation - The sole claim is anticipated by the '862 patent under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: '862 patent (China Design Patent No. CN 302112862S).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the '862 patent discloses a design that is visually indistinguishable from the claimed design of the ’728 patent. Through side-by-side visual comparisons, Petitioner asserted that the two designs are "nearly identical" and that their resemblance is deceptive enough to induce an ordinary observer to mistake one for the other. This comparison highlighted that all major ornamental features—the handle, supporting body, connecting arms, fan, and base with LED lights—as well as minor details like the front recess, switches, and droplet-shaped recesses, are virtually identical in shape, position, orientation, and overall arrangement. The '862 patent, patented in 2012, predates the ’728 patent’s 2016 filing date, qualifying it as prior art under §102(a)(1).

Ground 2: Obviousness - The sole claim is obvious over the '862 patent in view of the '427 patent under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: '862 patent (China Design Patent No. CN 302112862S) and '427 patent (China Utility Model Patent No. CN 203927427U).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the '862 patent serves as a primary reference that has "basically the same" design characteristics as the claimed design, satisfying the first step of the design patent obviousness test. The '427 patent, a utility model for a similar camping lantern with a fan, was introduced as a secondary reference to teach a minor ornamental variation. Specifically, the '862 patent shows a hook stowed within the handle, whereas the '728 patent depicts the hook in a lifted, deployed position. The '427 patent explicitly discloses a functionally similar rotatable hook on a nearly identical article, teaching that this feature is a well-known and obvious design choice for such products.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the teachings because both the '862 and '427 patents relate to the exact same field and type of product: a portable LED camping lantern with an integrated fan. Given this strong relationship, Petitioner argued the appearance of the deployable hook feature in the '427 patent would naturally suggest its application to the otherwise identical design shown in the '862 patent to achieve the final design of the '728 patent.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a clear expectation of success in applying the hook configuration from the '427 patent to the '862 patent design, as it involves a simple and predictable modification of a common feature on a highly analogous device.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed construing the sole design claim by identifying its primary constituent ornamental features as shown in the patent’s figures. This approach breaks the overall design into four main components for analytical comparison against the prior art:
    • (a) A handle, which includes a pivotally connected hook.
    • (b) A supporting unit, which forms the main body of the lantern.
    • (c) A fan, located at the bottom portion of the supporting unit.
    • (d) A base with LED lights, positioned underneath the fan.
  • Petitioner argued this component-based analysis is appropriate for a design patent and provides clarity for the anticipation and obviousness analyses.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of the sole claim of Patent D846,728 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103.