Bazooka Farmstar LLC v. Nuhn Industries Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-00098
• Patent #: 11,541,708
• Filed: November 3, 2023
• Petitioner(s): Bazooka-Farmstar, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Nuhn Industries Ltd.
• Challenged Claims: 1-38

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Amphibious Pumping Vehicles
• Brief Description: The ’708 patent relates to remote-controlled amphibious vehicles designed to operate on land and in liquid manure lagoons. The vehicles are equipped with a pump and nozzles to agitate and mix manure, preventing sludge accumulation in large lagoons that are otherwise difficult to service.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Bennett-II - Claim 23 is anticipated by Bennett-II.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Bennett-II (Application # 2021/0331752).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Bennett-II discloses every limitation of claim 23. Bennett-II teaches a vehicle for "amphibious operation" with a tub "configured to float" that includes buoyant chambers. The vehicle is propelled by "track members" and is powered by an engine. Crucially, Bennett-II explicitly discloses that the vehicle "may be operated by remote control" for both land and amphibious operation, satisfying the wireless remote control limitation for controlling the power source and vehicle direction in both environments.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Truxor and Yoon/Carrier - Claims 1, 8-18, 21-28, and 35-38 are obvious over Truxor in view of Yoon or Carrier.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Truxor (a printed publication for the DM5000 amphibious dredger), Yoon (KR Publication No. 20130016490), and Carrier (Application # 2012/0185129).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Truxor, a commercially available amphibious vehicle, discloses the core structural elements of the claims, including a floatable body, ground-engaging paddle tracks, a hydraulic system, and a dredging pump suitable for pumping slurry and liquid manure. The primary element missing from Truxor is remote control. Yoon and Carrier both disclose remote-controlled amphibious vehicles designed for hazardous environments (manure pumping and material decontamination, respectively).
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the remote-control teachings of Yoon or Carrier with the Truxor vehicle to improve operator safety. Truxor is operated in dangerous environments like dredging ponds and for oil spill cleanup, requiring the operator to be on board. Yoon and Carrier both expressly teach using remote control to remove the operator from hazardous or unpleasant settings, such as areas with foul odors or toxic materials. Petitioner also cited a Russian application (Melnikov) that specifically identified the on-board operator as a disadvantage of the Truxor machine and proposed adding remote control.
  • Expectation of Success: Applying the well-known technology of remote control to the Truxor vehicle would have yielded the predictable result of safer operation, providing a reasonable expectation of success.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Puck and Bryham - Claims 1, 8-18, 23-28, and 35-38 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 that Puck discloses a remote-controlled floating agitation boat with a pump for use in manure lagoons, but it is not amphibious and requires a cumbersome, manual launch process from a trailer. Bryham teaches adding steerable, hydraulically powered, all-terrain wheels to boats to make them amphibious.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Bryham’s powered wheels with Puck's boat to solve known problems associated with launching and retrieving the vessel. Bryham explicitly addresses the problems of users getting their feet wet, maneuvering trailers over unpaved terrain, and exposing trailers to corrosive environments—all of which are present when launching the Puck boat into a toxic and corrosive manure lagoon. Adding Bryham’s amphibious capability to Puck’s remote-controlled boat is an obvious solution to a known problem.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination would predictably result in a safer, more efficient amphibious vehicle that could enter and exit a manure lagoon without requiring an operator to wade into the hazardous environment or use a separate trailer, providing a high expectation of success.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on SenwaTec (another amphibious dredger) in view of Yoon or Carrier, and further combinations including Manure-Manager (a publication describing the patent owner's own prior art pump) to disclose specific pump features. These grounds relied on similar safety, design choice, and problem-solution motivations.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) is inappropriate because the petition presents new, non-cumulative prior art (Truxor, SenwaTec, Bryham, Yoon, Manure-Manager) and arguments not previously considered by the USPTO. Petitioner also contended that the Examiner materially erred in prior analyses of Puck and Bennett during prosecution of related patents.
• Petitioner further argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv is not warranted. The parallel district court litigation is in its early stages with no trial date set, and Petitioner has filed a motion to stay. The petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability across eight distinct grounds, and Petitioner has stipulated not to pursue the same grounds in litigation if the IPR is instituted.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-38 of the ’708 patent as unpatentable.