Meridian Wildlife Services LLC v. Safe Haven Wildlife Removal

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-01340
• Patent #: 11,064,683
• Filed: July 29, 2022
• Petitioner(s): Meridian Wildlife Services LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Safe Haven Wildlife Removal and Property Management Experts LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-8

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Bird Relocation System
• Brief Description: The ’683 patent relates to systems for relocating birds within large structures, such as warehouses or big-box stores. The system uses one or more nets suspended between telescoping poles that attach to overhead structures like ceiling rafters or support beams.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-8 are obvious over Brugh

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Brugh (Application # 2017/0238524).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Brugh disclosed a capture device for flying vertebrates in large buildings that met all limitations of independent claim 1. Brugh taught a net suspended between a pair of telescoping poles, with each pole including a hook for attachment to a ceiling rafter. Petitioner contended this directly taught the claimed "perimeter net" adapted to be positioned near a ceiling and attached to a "telescoping pole" via a "means of attachment" (the hook). For dependent claims, Petitioner asserted that Brugh’s disclosure of "nylon or other plastic netting" was a well-known type of mist net (claim 2), the hook was expressly disclosed as the means of attachment (claim 3), and the system included removable connectors (clips), ropes, and pulleys (claim 4). The argument for the "cleat" in claim 4 was that it would be an obvious addition for securing the rope.
  • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that using multiple Brugh devices to satisfy the limitations for one perimeter net and at least one trapping net (claim 5), or multiple nets of each type (claims 6-7), was obvious as mere duplication to increase capture coverage, a predictable result. Further, Brugh’s teaching of "driving the flying vertebrate...into the netting pockets" by making a loud noise or approaching the animal was argued to render the "flushing device" of claim 8 obvious.

Ground 2: Claims 1-8 are obvious over Brugh in view of Kunz

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Brugh (Application # 2017/0238524) and Kunz (Ecological and Behavioral Methods for the Study of Bats, 1990).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that Kunz, a well-known treatise on capturing flying vertebrates, supplemented and reinforced the teachings of Brugh. Kunz described various multi-net configurations using pole-mounted mist nets, which Petitioner argued would further motivate a POSITA to use multiple Brugh devices to create perimeter and trapping net arrays as required by claims 5-7. Kunz also expressly disclosed using cleats to secure ropes on pole-and-pulley systems, which Petitioner argued made the cleat limitation of claim 4 obvious when combined with Brugh's disclosed system. For claim 8, Kunz taught using extension poles with hoop nets to dislodge roosting bats, providing another clear example of a "flushing device."
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Brugh and Kunz because both address the same technical field. A POSITA seeking to improve the specific indoor capture system of Brugh would naturally consult a foundational text like Kunz for well-known, complementary techniques, such as multi-net strategies and standard hardware like cleats, to improve capture effectiveness.
  • Expectation of Success: Combining the established techniques from Kunz with Brugh’s system involved applying known methods for their intended purpose, which would have predictably resulted in a more effective and versatile capture system.

Ground 3: Claims 1-8 are obvious over Bird Barrier Video in view of Kunz

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Bird Barrier Video (a 2014 YouTube video) and Kunz (Ecological and Behavioral Methods for the Study of Bats, 1990).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted the Bird Barrier Video disclosed a mist net kit for capturing birds indoors that taught nearly all claimed elements. The video showed a mist net suspended between telescoping poles that attached to ceiling rafters using magnetic heads. Petitioner argued that substituting a common hook for the magnetic heads to perform the same attachment function would be an obvious and simple design choice (claims 1, 3). The video also taught a mist net (claim 2) and used loops on the net to attach to the poles (removable connector). Kunz was cited to supply teachings for adding a rope, pulley, and cleat system (claim 4) and to motivate the use of multiple net kits to create perimeter and trapping arrays (claims 5-7).
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the specific commercial product shown in the Bird Barrier Video with the general techniques from the Kunz treatise to enhance its functionality. For instance, a POSITA would be motivated to add the rope-and-pulley system taught by Kunz to the poles in the video to allow for easier net height adjustment.
  • Expectation of Success: Applying the conventional capture methods described in Kunz to the modern kit shown in the Bird Barrier Video would have predictably yielded an improved, more versatile bird capture system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "Perimeter Net" / "Trapping Net": Petitioner argued these terms should be construed based on their intended use or capability, not a specific structure or location. The petition contended the patent’s specification indicated they were structurally identical, meaning any net capable of trapping an animal or being placed along a perimeter met the respective limitation.
• "Means of Attachment...": Petitioner proposed this term in claim 1 should be construed as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). The only corresponding structure disclosed in the ’683 patent’s specification for performing the function of attaching to a rafter or beam was a "hook."

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §325(d), asserting that the specific prior art combinations and invalidity arguments presented in the petition had not been previously considered by the USPTO during prosecution.
• Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors, stating that the co-pending district court litigation was effectively stayed pending a motion to dismiss, with no trial date set, no discovery conducted, and no scheduling order issued, weighing strongly against denial.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-8 of Patent 11,064,683 as unpatentable.