PTAB

IPR2024-00700

Kohler Co v. Delta Faucet Co

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Illuminated Fluid Delivery Devices
Brief Description: The ’363 patent discloses an illumination device for fluid delivery sprayheads, such as pull-out faucets and pendant showerheads. The technology uses light emitters (e.g., LEDs) mounted on a substrate and a translucent "light pipe" to transmit and diffuse light, creating a more uniform appearance and avoiding "hot spots" common in prior art fixtures.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Tseng (Application # 2015/0354186).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Tseng discloses a pull-out faucet sprayhead with all elements of the independent claims directed to that embodiment. Tseng's device includes a housing, waterway, and an illumination device with LEDs ("plurality of LED elements 40") on a "circuit board 50" (substrate). Petitioner contended that Tseng's translucent, circular "light conductor" is functionally and structurally equivalent to the claimed "translucent light pipe," as it defines a closed loop and is positioned to diffuse light radially outward in a band. Petitioner asserted that while Tseng does not use the term "light pipe," a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have understood the equivalence, rendering the claims obvious over this single reference.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Tseng (Application # 2015/0354186) and Mizuno (JP 2003027537A).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses dependent claims 9 and 11, which add a "hydro-generator" fluidly coupled to the waterway to power the illumination device. While Tseng's device is powered by an external wire, Petitioner mapped this limitation to Mizuno, which teaches a faucet with an LED lamp powered by a hydroelectric generator mounted within the spout head.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Mizuno's hydro-generator with Tseng's faucet to eliminate the problems associated with external wiring, which include complex installation, added expense, and potential for wire failure due to stress in a pull-out design. Mizuno explicitly teaches that its generator eliminates the need for external power supplies or batteries.
- Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued for a high expectation of success because Mizuno's generator is specifically designed for plumbing fixtures like faucets and could be readily integrated into the internal chamber of Tseng's sprayhead.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Tse (WO 2009/000109).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Tse discloses all elements of the claims directed to a pendant showerhead. Tse teaches a showerhead with a housing, waterway, sprayface, and an illumination device. This device includes LEDs on a substrate, disposed in a groove on the sprayface and sealed by a circular, transparent "cover 23." Petitioner contended this cover is the claimed "translucent light pipe," arguing it is structurally and functionally indistinguishable from the light pipe disclosed in the ’363 patent's showerhead embodiment. The cover diffuses light from the LEDs downward, parallel to the longitudinal axis, to color the emitted water.
- Key Aspects: The core of this argument rests on the functional equivalency of Tse's "cover 23" to the claimed "light pipe," which a POSITA would have readily understood.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted further obviousness challenges, including combining Tseng with Schneider (Application # 2015/0221206) to add temperature-based color-changing functionality. It also presented alternative grounds for the showerhead embodiment by combining Tse with Carter (Application # 2010/0046199) to teach an integrated molded light pipe for improved durability, and with Spangler (Application # 2013/0299608) to add multi-dimensional fluid dispensers for enhanced spray patterns.

Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate for two primary reasons.
Under 35 U.S.C. §314(a): Petitioner asserted that no grounds for denial under the Fintiv factors exist, as there are no co-pending district court actions or prior post-grant proceedings involving the ’363 patent.
Under 35 U.S.C. §325(d): Petitioner contended that denial would be improper because the primary prior art references relied upon—Tseng, Tse, and Carter—were not cited or considered by the Examiner during the original prosecution. Furthermore, the challenged claims were allowed without any rejections over prior art, meaning the asserted grounds present issues of first impression for the patent.

Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 1-24 of the ’363 patent as unpatentable.