PTAB

IPR2023-00589

Vantage Specialty Chemicals Inc v. Cargill Inc

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Processes and Systems for Catalytic Manufacture of Wax Ester Derivatives
  • Brief Description: The ’245 patent describes a process for transesterifying wax esters. The process involves providing a feedstock comprising jojoba wax esters and 20% to 50% by weight of hydrogenated jojoba wax esters, contacting the feedstock with a lipase catalyst to form a transesterified product with an oxidative stability index (OSI) greater than that of the original feedstock.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Cummings in view of Xu and/or Sessa - Claims 1-3 and 5

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Cummings (a May 1999 article in SOAP, PERFUMERY, AND COSMETICS), Xu (a 2003 article in EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF LIPID SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY), and Sessa (a 1996 article in JOURNAL OF THE SCIENCE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Cummings taught a process of interesterifying a feedstock of unsaturated jojoba oil combined with fully saturated (hydrogenated) jojoba oil. Cummings further disclosed that the resulting transesterified "jojoba esters" demonstrate "remarkable stability with OSI values... greater than 100 hours," which is significantly higher than the feedstock's refined jojoba oil OSI of "around 35 hours." While Cummings did not specify using a lipase catalyst, Xu allegedly cured this deficiency by explicitly teaching the use of lipases for interesterification and transesterification reactions as an advantageous alternative to chemical catalysts. To the extent Cummings did not explicitly disclose the claimed 20% to 50% range for hydrogenated jojoba wax esters, Petitioner asserted Sessa explicitly taught transesterifying jojoba oil with blends of hydrogenated jojoba wax esters in amounts including 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% by weight.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references as they pertain to the same field of lipid chemistry. A POSITA would have been motivated to replace the general catalyst in Cummings' process with the lipase taught by Xu to gain known benefits such as milder reaction conditions, improved product quality, and fewer byproducts. Furthermore, a POSITA would have looked to Sessa to optimize the feedstock ratios in Cummings' process to achieve desirable physical properties, such as improved thermal and oxidative stability.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a product with an improved OSI, as Cummings already demonstrated a significant OSI increase from its interesterification process. Using a lipase (Xu) and optimizing feedstock ratios (Sessa) were presented as known methods for improving such chemical processes.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Trans Isomers 2 in view of Xu and/or Sessa - Claims 1-3 and 5

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Trans Isomers 2 (a June 2001 article in SOAP & COSMETICS), Xu (a 2003 journal article), and Sessa (a 1996 journal article).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Trans Isomers 2 taught a process for the interesterification of a feedstock containing jojoba oil and fully hydrogenated jojoba oil using a sodium methylate (chemical) catalyst. Trans Isomers 2 also allegedly demonstrated that the resulting jojoba esters have a significantly greater OSI than partially hydrogenated jojoba oils with similar melting points, thus teaching the "greater OSI" limitation. As in Ground 1, Petitioner argued Xu taught using a lipase as a superior alternative to the chemical catalyst of Trans Isomers 2, and Sessa taught the specific 20% to 50% weight range of hydrogenated jojoba wax esters for the feedstock.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation for combining Trans Isomers 2 with Xu and Sessa was argued to be the same as in Ground 1: a POSITA would seek to improve the known process in Trans Isomers 2 by substituting the chemical catalyst with a more efficient and "natural" lipase catalyst from Xu. The POSITA would also be motivated to vary the feedstock ratios as taught by Sessa to optimize the final product's physical characteristics.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success because Trans Isomers 2 already showed the base process yielded a product with improved oxidative stability. Applying the known techniques of using a lipase catalyst and optimizing reactant ratios would be expected to produce a successful outcome.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Trans Isomers 2 in view of Trans Isomers 1 and/or Sessa - Claims 1-3 and 5

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Trans Isomers 2 (a June 2001 article), Trans Isomers 1 (a May 2001 article in SOAP & COSMETICS), and Sessa (a 1996 journal article).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground is similar to Ground 2, but instead of using Xu to supply the lipase catalyst, it relied on Trans Isomers 1. Petitioner argued that Trans Isomers 2, which used a chemical catalyst, explicitly cited Trans Isomers 1 as "Part 1 of this series." Trans Isomers 1 allegedly disclosed that interesterification can be used to modify melting characteristics using various catalysts, specifically including enzymes. Therefore, the combination of Trans Isomers 1 and 2 was argued to teach the complete process of claim 1, including the use of an enzyme (lipase) catalyst. Sessa was again relied upon for the explicit disclosure of the 20% to 50% feedstock concentration range.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been strongly motivated to combine Trans Isomers 1 and 2 because they are presented as a two-part series by the same authors in the same publication, addressing the same technical problem. This direct reference provides an explicit reason to read the disclosures together. The motivation to incorporate Sessa's teachings remained the routine optimization of product properties.
    • Expectation of Success: Given that Trans Isomers 1 and 2 are a cohesive series discussing the same technology, a POSITA would have a high expectation of success in applying the enzyme catalyst discussed in Part 1 to the specific jojoba ester process detailed in Part 2.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 4) based on Brown (Patent RE38,141) in view of Xu, Cummings, and/or Sessa, which relied on similar arguments for combining a primary reference teaching transesterification of jojoba esters with secondary references teaching lipase catalysts and specific feedstock ratios.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d).
  • To address Fintiv factors, Petitioner stipulated that, if an inter partes review (IPR) is instituted, it will not pursue in the parallel district court litigation any invalidity grounds based on patents or printed publications that were raised or could have been reasonably raised in the IPR. Petitioner also argued the district court case was in a very early stage with minimal investment from the court, and the trial date was scheduled for well after a Final Written Decision would be due, favoring institution.
  • Petitioner further argued denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate because the primary prior art references and the specific combinations asserted in the petition were not previously applied or considered by the Examiner during prosecution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-3 and 5 of the ’245 patent as unpatentable.