Intex Recreation Corp v. Bestway Inflatables Material Corp

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2023-00486
• Patent #: 10,687,633
• Filed: January 21, 2023
• Petitioner(s): Intex Recreation Corp.
• Patent Owner(s): Bestway Inflatables & Materials Corp.
• Challenged Claims: 1, 2, 16, 19, 20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Inflatable Bed
• Brief Description: The ’633 patent discloses an inflatable bed with a support structure comprising multiple internal tensioning structures. These structures are configured to connect the top and bottom sheets to the side walls to limit outward bulging, prevent deformation, and improve stability, particularly in larger-height beds.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Aoki - Claims 1-2 are obvious over Aoki

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Aoki (JPU-1-1974-034811).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Aoki, a 1972 reference for a box-shaped air mattress, discloses all limitations of claim 1. Aoki taught a top sheet, bottom sheet, and side walls forming an air chamber. It also disclosed vertical hanging sheets as a first tensioning structure between the top and bottom sheets. Critically, Aoki disclosed using multiple "diagonal bracing hanging sheets" at each corner, which connect the top sheet to the side walls and the bottom sheet to the side walls. These diagonal sheets allegedly constitute the claimed second and third tensioning structures. For claim 2, Petitioner contended that because Aoki’s diagonal bracing sheets are applied at the corners and do not span the entire length of the mattress, the resulting gaps constitute the claimed "plurality of air holes" that form an airflow passage, consistent with the ’633 patent’s own figures.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground relied on a single reference. However, Petitioner argued that to the extent Aoki's disclosure of using multiple diagonal bracings at "each corner" is considered a separate embodiment from its general figures, a POSITA would have been motivated to apply them to all corners to achieve the stated benefits of stability and prevent the bed from becoming asymmetric or lopsided.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in applying Aoki's teachings to solve the exact problems of bulging and instability in taller mattresses that Aoki addresses.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Aoki and Lin ’773 - Claims 1-2 and 16 are obvious over Aoki in view of Lin ’773

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Aoki (JPU-1-1974-034811) and Lin ’773 (Patent 8,562,773).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that even if Aoki alone does not render the claims obvious, the combination with Lin ’773 does. Lin ’773 taught improved, lightweight tensioning structures using a plurality of parallel strands captured between weld strips. Petitioner argued a POSITA would replace Aoki’s older "hanging sheets" with the modern, advantageous tensioning structures from Lin ’773. This substitution would meet all limitations of claim 1. For claim 16, which requires high-frequency welding, Lin ’773 explicitly disclosed using a "high-frequency welder" to couple its structures. For claim 2, the spaces between the parallel strands in Lin ’773’s structure would inherently form the claimed "air holes."
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA in 2016, starting with the 1972 Aoki design, would naturally look to modern art for improved materials. Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine Aoki's overall structure with Lin ’773's tensioning technology to achieve the known benefits of reduced weight, cost, and packed volume while providing high tensile strength, as taught by Lin ’773.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success would be expected, as this involves substituting one known type of tensioning structure for another to achieve predictable benefits. Using high-frequency welding was a well-known and reliable method for joining such components.

Ground 4: Obviousness over Aoki, Lin ’773, and Liu ’866 - Claims 19-20 are obvious over the combination of Aoki, Lin ’773, and Liu ’866

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Aoki (JPU-1-1974-034811), Lin ’773 (Patent 8,562,773), and Liu ’866 (Patent 7,269,866).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Aoki/Lin ’773 combination by adding Liu ’866 to teach the limitations of claims 19 (built-in air pump) and 20 (air valve). Liu ’866 expressly disclosed a raised-height airbed with a built-in electrical air pump and an air valve on the side wall for inflation and deflation. Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to add these well-known features to the Aoki/Lin ’773 mattress. Specifically for claim 19, Liu ’866 showed the pump disposed on a side wall above its bottom tensioning structures, motivating a POSITA to place the pump in the gap between the upper (second) and lower (third) tensioning structures of Aoki for convenience and to avoid interference.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Since Aoki is silent on inflation means, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate a built-in pump and valve for user convenience, a common feature in the art. Liu ’866 was a suitable reference as it addressed the same problems as Aoki (stability in large-height mattresses). The addition of a pump and valve was presented as a simple combination of known elements to arrive at the claimed invention.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have reasonably expected success, as adding built-in pumps and valves to inflatable products was a routine and well-understood practice by the priority date.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge for claim 16 based on Aoki, Lin ’773, and Liu (Application # 2015/0335164), where Liu was used as further support for employing RF/high-frequency welding.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "air holes": Petitioner argued this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning of "openings through which air may flow." This construction is critical because it would include not only purpose-made openings but also gaps between constituent parts of a tensioning structure, such as the spaces between parallel strands (Lin '773) or the gaps at the corners of unconnected bracing sheets (Aoki).

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued discretionary denial would be inappropriate. Denial under Fintiv was unwarranted because the related District Court litigation was stayed pending the outcome of the IPR. Denial under §325(d) was argued to be improper because the core prior art references (Aoki and Liu ’866) and the asserted combinations were never presented to or considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’633 patent.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, 16, 19, and 20 of the ’633 patent as unpatentable.