Innovative Growers Equipment Inc v. Pipp Mobile Storage Systems Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-00893
• Patent #: 10,806,099
• Filed: April 19, 2022
• Petitioner(s): Innovative Growers Equipment, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Pipp Mobile Storage Systems, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-11, 15, 18-42, 44-47, 49-60

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System and Method for Providing Carbon Dioxide and Circulating Air for Vertical Gardening System
• Brief Description: The ’099 patent describes a flow distribution system for vertical farming environments. The system is designed to circulate air and distribute carbon dioxide to eliminate stagnant air pockets and ensure uniform delivery to crops on multi-level rack assemblies, using a compact housing and elongated ducts.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Ellestad in view of Hutto - Claims 25-27, 45, 50, 58, and 59 are obvious over Ellestad in view of Hutto.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Ellestad (WO 2017/024079) and Hutto (Patent 10,674,680).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that during prosecution, the examiner found that Ellestad, a horticultural system with integrated airflow, disclosed every limitation of the claims except for the specific air flow path. The claims were only allowed after being amended to require that "air passing through the air inlet portion is received into the housing in a downward direction and the air passing through the outlet portion is received into the elongated duct in a horizontal direction." Petitioner contended that Hutto, a reference not considered by the examiner, explicitly teaches this exact air flow configuration. Hutto describes a fan coil apparatus for a closed greenhouse that includes a housing with a downward-facing intake and an outlet that directs air horizontally into duct tubing.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the general horticultural airflow system of Ellestad with the specific air handling features of Hutto. Both references address the need to control the growing environment in a confined space. A POSITA would have recognized that incorporating Hutto’s downward air intake would be advantageous for managing condensation, as it allows moisture to drip into a drain pan—a known issue in cooled, humid environments. This combination represented a predictable solution to a known problem.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because combining the systems involved applying well-understood principles of air flow management from one horticultural system (Hutto) to another (Ellestad). The modification was presented as a matter of routine engineering design choice to achieve a predictable result.

Ground 2: Anticipation by Takashima - Claims 25-27, 45, 50, 58, and 59 are anticipated by Takashima.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Takashima (Application # 2016/0007544).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Takashima, which discloses an air emission device for growing plants, teaches every limitation of the challenged claims, including the specific air flow direction that distinguished the ’099 patent over the prior art of record. Takashima’s FIG. 1 shows an air pump positioned above multiple air pipes (elongated ducts) that are connected via a unifying portion. Petitioner contended this arrangement inherently discloses a housing (the unifying portion) that receives air from the pump in a downward direction and distributes it to the pipes in a horizontal direction. Takashima also disclosed a support structure for the air emission units, which Petitioner mapped to the claimed "rack," and showed that the ducts extend away from the housing. Dependent claims were also argued to be met, as Takashima showed multiple, adjacent air pipes with spaces between them.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Takashima in view of Abe and Fujio - Claims 25-27, 45, 50, 58, and 59 are obvious over Takashima in view of Abe and Fujio.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Takashima (Application # 2016/0007544), Abe (Application # 2019/0261587), and Fujio (JP Patent No. 5696848).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: As an alternative to its anticipation argument, Petitioner argued that if Takashima were found not to explicitly or inherently disclose certain features, those features would have been obvious in view of Abe or Fujio. Abe discloses a hydroponic cultivation apparatus where an air blower is positioned over air blowing pipes, explicitly teaching a downward flow of air into horizontal pipes. Fujio discloses a plant cultivation shelf device with an air supply vertical duct (housing) that feeds horizontal air supply passages (elongated ducts) on a rack system.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Takashima with Abe or Fujio because they all operate in the same field of plant cultivation and address the common problem of efficiently delivering fluids and air to plants. Petitioner argued that modifying Takashima’s air delivery system with the explicit flow-path configurations shown in Abe or Fujio would have been a mere substitution of known elements to achieve a predictable result, representing nothing more than routine optimization.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 25-27, 45, 50, 58, and 59 based on Fujio in view of Abe, relying on similar arguments regarding the combination of known air distribution components for plant cultivation systems.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) based on the Fintiv factors was not warranted. The parallel district court litigation was in its early stages, with no trial date set and fact discovery not yet closed. Petitioner also asserted that the prior art and invalidity grounds presented in the IPR (particularly the Hutto reference) did not substantially overlap with the invalidity contentions in the district court case. Finally, Petitioner claimed the petition presented a strong case for unpatentability, which weighs in favor of institution to promote the efficiency and integrity of the patent system.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-11, 15, 18-42, 44-47, and 49-60 of the ’099 patent as unpatentable.