PTAB

IPR2022-00293

Envirotainer Ab v. Doubleday Acquisitions LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Thermally Insulated Cargo Containers and Methods for Making Same
  • Brief Description: The ’511 patent discloses thermally insulated cargo containers constructed with box-like composite inner and outer shells. The thermal insulation material, which can include vacuum insulated panels (VIPs), is confined in the space between the shells.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Kuhn - Claims 1, 2, and 8 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Kuhn.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kuhn (WO 2004/104498).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kuhn teaches every element of the challenged claims. Kuhn discloses a thermally insulated shipping container with a composite outer shell and inner shell, both made from a "sandwich material" including layers of fiber-reinforced plastic, which Petitioner asserted meets the "resin impregnated fibers" limitation. Kuhn further discloses vacuum insulation elements (VIPs) confined between the inner and outer shells and a passive refrigeration system comprising "melting storage elements" to cool the chamber. For claim 8, Petitioner asserted Kuhn's "fixedly connected" wall elements form a one-piece unit and its disclosure of stacking multiple VIP layers meets the "insulation cassettes" limitation.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Loeffler and Kuhn - Claims 1, 2, and 7-10 are obvious over Loeffler in view of Kuhn.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Loeffler (WO 2004/045987) and Kuhn (WO 2004/104498).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Kuhn teaches the fundamental structure of the claimed cargo container, including the composite inner and outer shells with VIPs in between. Loeffler, which discloses a refrigerated air freight container, was argued to supply the active refrigeration system required by certain claims. Specifically, Loeffler teaches a refrigeration unit with a compressor, condenser, and evaporator, as well as storage batteries, mounted on rearwardly projecting support members of the container's outer shell (claim 7). Loeffler also teaches parallel spaced members on the floor defining airflow passages for uniform temperature distribution (claims 9 and 10).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Kuhn’s robust container structure with Loeffler’s active cooling system to achieve enhanced, reliable cooling performance. This combination would allow for the transport of high-value cargo requiring precise temperature control over long durations, an improvement over Kuhn's passive system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success as both references are directed to insulated shipping containers for temperature-sensitive cargo and both teach placing insulation between inner and outer shells. Integrating Loeffler's active cooling components into Kuhn's container structure was presented as a predictable design choice.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Ekerot and Cur - Claims 1, 2, 8, 11, and 30-31 are obvious over Ekerot in view of Cur.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ekerot (Application # 2003/0019870) and Cur (Patent 5,082,335).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Ekerot teaches the basic container and method, including separate molding of composite inner and outer shells, inserting the inner shell into the outer, and filling the interspace with insulation. Cur was cited for its disclosure of advanced, multi-compartment VIPs. Petitioner asserted it would have been obvious to use Cur's superior VIPs as the insulation material within the interspace of Ekerot's container shells. For the method claims (30-31), Ekerot was argued to teach the steps of forming and assembling the shells, while Cur's active refrigeration system would supply the claimed compressor and evaporator.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to use Cur's well-known VIPs in Ekerot's container to improve thermal efficiency. Cur’s thinner, more effective panels would help achieve Ekerot’s goal of a lighter-weight container with minimal heat transfer, maximizing both thermal performance and structural rigidity.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because Ekerot's container is explicitly designed to house insulation panels in its interspace, and Cur's panels are specifically designed for refrigeration applications. The substitution of one known insulation type for another, more effective type was argued to be a predictable modification.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims 1, 2, 7-8, 11, and 30-31 are obvious over Sinclair in view of Kuhn, and claims 1, 2, and 9-11 are obvious over Broussard in view of Cur. These grounds relied on similar principles of combining a known container structure with superior insulation or refrigeration technologies.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §325(d), asserting that the majority of the prior art relied upon (Kuhn, Loeffler, Sinclair, Ekerot) was never considered during prosecution. For the art that was on the face of the patent (Broussard and Cur), Petitioner claimed the Examiner committed a material error by not substantively reviewing it, especially since the European Patent Office rejected similar claims based on this art.
  • Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv factors, stating that the parallel district court litigation was in a nascent stage. At the time of filing, no scheduling conference had occurred, no trial date was set, and discovery had not commenced, making a stay pending the IPR outcome highly probable and efficient.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 2, 7-11, 30, and 31 of the ’511 patent as unpatentable.