PTAB

IPR2023-00940

Bear Down Brands LLC v. Litebook Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method for Light Therapy Using Specific Wavelengths
  • Brief Description: The ’140 patent is directed to a method for treating or preventing light-responsive disorders in mammals. The method involves exposing the retina to a light source emitting a pre-established spectral composition with at least one peak of emitted light within the 435-488 nm range to regulate human circadian, photoneural, or neuroendocrine systems.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation - Claims 1 and 6 are anticipated by Weth under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Weth (German Patent No. DE29618670U1).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Weth discloses every limitation of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 6. Weth describes an "energy-saving lamp for medical therapies" used to treat a wide range of light-responsive disorders, including depression and sleep disorders. The lamp emits optical radiation with a pre-established spectral composition designed to be "maximally potent" by corresponding to the absorption lines of endogenous substances. Critically, Weth's lamp emits light with a spectral peak at 438 nm (±15 nm), which falls within the ’140 patent's claimed range of 435-488 nm. Petitioner asserted that Weth teaches exposing the retina to this light, as the therapeutic effect is "obtained purely by way of the eyes." The lamp is described as a tabletop or ceiling lamp, which is not mounted on the body of the user. This exposure regulates circadian and neuroendocrine systems by, for example, improving sleep quality and increasing dopamine levels. For claim 6, which adds the prevention of a disorder, Petitioner pointed to Weth's disclosure of using its lamp for prophylactic measures, such as the "avoidance of myocardial infarctions and strokes."

Ground 2: Obviousness - Claims 2-5 and 7-9 are obvious over Weth in view of Weber under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Weth (German Patent No. DE29618670U1) and Weber (Patent 6,531,230).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Weth provides the base method of claim 1, and the additional limitations of the dependent claims would have been obvious modifications using the teachings of Weber. Claims 2-5 and 7-9 add requirements for providing a "light filtering component" that is either "transparent" or "translucent" to transmit the therapeutically effective radiation. Weber discloses multilayer optical films that function as simple color filters designed for use with broadband light sources. These filters are useful for concentrating light of desired wavelengths and can be configured to be transparent or translucent. For example, Petitioner noted that Weber’s Figure 19 shows a filter that transmits light in the blue spectrum (below 500 nm, encompassing Weth's 438 nm peak) while filtering out over 90% of light in the yellow spectrum (525-725 nm). Petitioner argued that applying Weber's transparent or translucent filter to Weth's lamp directly meets the limitations of the dependent claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Weth and Weber to solve a known problem with a predictable solution. Petitioner argued that Weth acknowledges the need to avoid side effects like headaches and nausea, which it addresses by limiting luminosity. A POSITA would have known that such side effects are often attributed to the yellow component of light. Therefore, a POSITA would have been motivated to improve Weth's lamp by enabling higher, more effective luminosity while simultaneously mitigating side effects. They would have looked to known filtering technologies like Weber to selectively remove the problematic yellow wavelengths from Weth's light source.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. Combining a known light source (Weth) with a known filter technology (Weber) designed specifically for modifying light from such sources would be a straightforward application. The result—a therapeutic lamp with reduced side effects capable of operating at higher intensity—was predictable.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial is not warranted under either §325(d) or the Fintiv factors.
  • §325(d): Petitioner asserted that Weth and Weber are new prior art references that were not before the examiner during prosecution and are not cumulative of the previously considered art. Weth specifically teaches ocular light therapy with a spectral peak within the claimed range, a key aspect not previously addressed.
  • Fintiv Factors: Despite concurrent district court litigation, Petitioner argued the factors strongly favor institution. The petition was filed early in the litigation, before any significant investment in discovery or claim construction. Furthermore, the district court trial date is scheduled for several months after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision in the inter partes review (IPR), and Petitioner is filing a motion to stay the litigation. Finally, Petitioner contended the merits of the petition are exceptionally strong, which weighs heavily in favor of institution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-9 of the ’140 patent as unpatentable.