Bazooka Farmstar LLC v. Nuhn Industries Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2023-01161
• Patent #: 11,358,425
• Filed: June 30, 2023
• Petitioner(s): Bazooka-Farmstar, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Nuhn Industries Ltd.
• Challenged Claims: 1-21

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Amphibious Pumping Vehicle
• Brief Description: The ’425 patent discloses a remote-controlled amphibious vehicle designed for agitating liquid manure in storage lagoons. The vehicle comprises a floatable body, ground propulsion elements (wheels or tracks), a fluid pump with nozzles, a power source, and a wireless remote control for an operator.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Carrier - Claims 1-21 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102 over Carrier.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Carrier (Application # 2012/0185129).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Carrier, which discloses a remote-controlled, multi-purpose, all-terrain amphibious vehicle, teaches every element of the challenged claims. Carrier discloses a floatable hull, eight wheels driven by hydraulic motors, a pump for shooting water or other fluids, a power source for the hydraulics and pump, and a comprehensive remote-control system.
  • Key Aspects: The core of this ground rested on the argument that the claim phrase "a fluid pump for pumping liquid manure" is a non-limiting statement of intended use. Petitioner contended that Carrier's pump, designed for firefighting and capable of pumping water and slurries, is structurally sufficient and inherently capable of pumping liquid manure, which has physical properties similar to water. Petitioner asserted that allowance during a prior reexamination was based on an incorrect legal interpretation of this phrase as a structural limitation.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Truxor and Remote-Control Art - Claims 1-7 and 12-19 are obvious over Truxor in view of Yoon or Carrier.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Truxor (a 2010 amphibious vehicle brochure), Yoon (KR Publication # 20130016490), and Carrier (Application # 2012/0185129).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Truxor, a commercially available multifunctional amphibious vehicle, discloses the core structure of the invention: a floatable body, paddle tracks for propulsion, a hydraulic system powered by an engine, and a dredging pump attachment. This vehicle was used for dredging sediment and other tasks in hazardous environments like oil spill sites.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the Truxor vehicle with the remote-control teachings of Yoon or Carrier for operator safety. Both Yoon and Carrier explicitly teach using remote controls on amphibious vehicles to remove the operator from dangerous environments (e.g., waste material reservoirs, hazardous decontamination sites). Adding a known remote-control system to the known Truxor vehicle for the predictable purpose of enhancing safety would have been obvious.
  • Expectation of Success: Given that remote-control technology was well-established for vehicles, a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in integrating such a system into the Truxor vehicle.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Puck and Bryham - Claims 1-21 are obvious over Puck in view of Bryham.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Puck (Application # 2014/0112093) and Bryham (Patent 7,314,395).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Puck teaches a remote-controlled floating boat with a pump and nozzles specifically for agitating manure lagoons. However, Puck described a cumbersome manual process for launching and retrieving the boat from a trailer, which required the operator to be in or near the hazardous lagoon. Bryham teaches adding powered, steerable, all-terrain wheels to a boat to solve these exact problems.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Bryham’s powered wheels with Puck’s manure agitation boat to solve the known problems associated with launching and retrieving boats in difficult environments. This combination would create a safer and more efficient amphibious vehicle by eliminating the need for a trailer and manual handling at the edge of a corrosive manure lagoon.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known solution (Bryham's amphibious conversion) to a known problem (Puck's difficult launch/retrieval process), yielding the predictable result of an amphibious manure agitator.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including claims 1-7 and 12-19 over SenwaTec in view of Yoon or Carrier; claims 1-21 over Puck and Bryham in further view of Bennett-II; and an anticipation challenge to claims 1-21 over Lyseng, a publication describing the Patent Owner's commercial product, contingent on a finding of a later priority date for the ’425 patent.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner dedicated a significant portion of its argument to construing the phrases “for pumping liquid manure” and “to control a flow of liquid manure.”
• Petitioner argued these are non-limiting statements of intended use that do not impart any structural difference over prior art pumps or remote controls. The petition asserted that the patent specification provides no specific structure required for a pump to handle liquid manure versus other fluids like water, and extrinsic evidence shows that conventional water pumps were, in fact, used to pump liquid manure. This construction was critical to the anticipation ground over Carrier.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §325(d) - Same or Substantially Same Art or Arguments: Petitioner argued denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate. It contended that the petition presented new, non-cumulative prior art not previously considered by the USPTO, including Truxor, SenwaTec, and Yoon, which are materially different from the art of record. Furthermore, Petitioner argued the USPTO erred in its prior analysis of Carrier by misinterpreting claim language as a structural limitation and by accepting incorrect attorney arguments about a pump’s capability.
• §314(a) - Fintiv Factors: Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, stating that the parallel district court litigation was in its very early stages, with no trial date set and key deadlines like claim construction and discovery still many months away. Petitioner also provided a stipulation that, if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue in the district court any ground raised or that could have been reasonably raised in the petition.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-21 of the ’425 patent as unpatentable.