PTAB

IPR2023-01324

SharkNinja Inc v. Dyson Technology Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Hand-Held Appliance
  • Brief Description: The ’662 patent relates to a hand-held hair care appliance, such as a hairdryer. The invention describes an appliance with a handle and a body, where the handle comprises an inner wall disposed radially inward from an outer wall, and the primary fluid flow path from an inlet to an outlet is non-linear.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 26-28 are anticipated by Jeong under 35 U.S.C. § 102

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Jeong (Application # US 2013/0111777).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Jeong, which discloses a hair dryer, teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Jeong’s cylindrical housing (10) corresponds to the claimed “handle” and “outer wall,” while its internal motor housing (18) constitutes the claimed “inner wall.” The motor housing is disposed radially inward from the main housing. The primary fluid flow path in Jeong—from the inlet slots (14) at the base of the handle, through the motor housing, and exiting through the discharge nozzle (30)—is non-linear, as the airflow changes direction by approximately 90 degrees. This structure meets all limitations of independent claim 26 and dependent claims 27 and 28, which add limitations regarding the directional flow within the handle and body.

Ground 2: Claims 26-28 are anticipated by Yoshida under 35 U.S.C. § 102

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Yoshida (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP S 60-249907).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Yoshida, which describes a hair dryer with a brush-like shape, also anticipates all challenged claims. Yoshida’s main housing (1) functions as the claimed “handle” and “outer wall.” An internal cylindrical wind tunnel (7) that surrounds the fan is disposed radially inward from the housing and constitutes the “inner wall.” The primary fluid flow path is non-linear because air enters through suction ports (13, 14) at the rear of the handle, passes through the wind tunnel, and is then deflected by a partition plate (55) before exiting through outlets (59) at the front of the device at a different angle. This arrangement was argued to satisfy all limitations of claims 26-28.

Ground 3: Claims 26-28 are anticipated by Jeffs or, alternatively, obvious over Jeffs in view of Jeong or Yoshida under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Jeffs (Patent 5,407,135), Jeong (Application # US 2013/0111777), and Yoshida (JP S 60-249907).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Jeffs, a hand-held air blower for drying paint, discloses all structural limitations of the claims. Jeffs’s device has a pistol-grip handle (10) that serves as the “outer wall” and a barrel (21) that acts as the “body.” A high-pressure air inlet channel (35) within the handle constitutes the “inner wall,” which is disposed radially inward. The primary fluid flow path—from a union (36) at the base of the handle, through the channel (35), and into the barrel (21)—is non-linear, changing direction by approximately 90 degrees. Petitioner contended that if the preamble "A hair care appliance" is not limiting, Jeffs anticipates claims 26-28.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): If the preamble is found to be limiting, Petitioner argued it would be obvious to adapt Jeffs's blower for hair care. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would recognize the structural and functional similarities between a paint blower and a hair dryer, as both are hand-held devices that blow air to dry a surface. The ’662 patent itself acknowledges that blowers are used for drying substances such as "paint or hair," demonstrating the interchangeability of the technology.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in using the Jeffs device for drying hair. Jeffs’s disclosed airflow rates fall within the typical range of commercial hair dryers, and using unheated air for drying hair is a known concept analogous to the "cool-shot" feature on modern dryers.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "A hair care appliance" (preamble of claim 26): Petitioner argued this preamble is not limiting because it merely states the intended use of the invention, and the body of the claim describes a structurally complete appliance. Therefore, a device like Jeffs's air blower, which is not designed for hair care but meets all structural limitations, would anticipate the claim. Alternatively, if the Board finds the preamble limiting, the obviousness grounds combining Jeffs with hair dryer references (Jeong or Yoshida) would apply.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Discretionary Denial Under §314(a) / Fintiv: Petitioner argued denial is not warranted because the petition was filed before any infringement complaint was filed by the Patent Owner. The absence of a co-pending district court case means the Fintiv factors weigh strongly in favor of institution.
  • Discretionary Denial Under §325(d): Petitioner asserted that denial is inappropriate because the petition raises new and non-cumulative arguments. Although Jeong was cited during prosecution, it was part of a large Information Disclosure Statement and was never substantively analyzed by the Examiner in view of the claim amendments that led to allowance. The other primary references, Yoshida and Jeffs, were never considered during the original prosecution.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 26-28 of the ’662 patent as unpatentable.