PTAB

IPR2024-00764

Nulids LLC v. Blephex LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Instrument for Treating an Ocular Disorder
  • Brief Description: The ’621 patent discloses a method and apparatus for treating ocular disorders, such as blepharitis, by mechanically removing debris from the eyelid margin. The disclosed instrument utilizes an electromechanical drive unit to move a contact member, described as a swab or medical-grade sponge, to scrub and impact debris for its removal.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-5, 9, and 11-15 are obvious over Grenon I, Grenon II, and Nichamin.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Grenon I (Application # 2007/0060988), Grenon II (Application # 2007/0016254), and Nichamin (Application # 2013/0331768).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Grenon I taught the core elements of a method for treating ocular disorders, including an electromechanical device with a soft, resilient contact member (a flexible silicone heat sink) that applies vibration to the eyelid. Grenon II was argued to add teachings of a probe specifically configured to access the eyelid margin to remove obstructions and a "goggle-like" device that would prevent a user from lifting the eyelid during treatment, satisfying the "without lifting the eyelid" limitation. Petitioner asserted that Nichamin supplied the missing element of electromechanical rotation of a contact member, describing an applicator that may "rotate, rub, vibrate, or otherwise move to aid in the chafing process" to scrub the eyelid margin and remove debris.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references because they address the same problem of treating eyelid conditions like meibomian gland dysfunction. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate the rotational scrubbing motion from Nichamin into the heating and vibrating device of Grenon I and II to achieve more effective mechanical debridement. The combination was presented as a predictable aggregation of known elements to improve a known therapy.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in combining these known techniques, as applying rotational motion to a vibrating, heating eyelid treatment device would predictably enhance its ability to dislodge and remove debris.

Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 5, and 12-15 are obvious over Grenon II and Colin.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Grenon II (Application # 2007/0016254) and Colin (WO 2009/066077).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner alleged this combination also rendered the claims obvious. Grenon II was cited for its general disclosure of an electromechanical device for treating meibomian gland dysfunction by removing obstructions. Colin was argued to teach key missing features, including a "deformable eyelid interface" made of soft silicone rubber (a soft, resilient contact member) and an electromechanical motor that rotates massaging nodules. Petitioner argued Colin’s device was explicitly designed to provide concomitant heating, massaging, and "scrubbing of the lash bases" to displace debris, directly teaching the rotational scrubbing of the eyelid margin.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that Grenon II and Colin both aim to treat meibomian gland dysfunction. A POSITA reading Grenon II would have been motivated to look to other solutions like Colin to improve mechanical debris removal. Since Colin explicitly taught a rotating, scrubbing element as an effective treatment modality, it would have been obvious to integrate Colin’s rotating contact member into Grenon II’s system to create a more effective device.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be predictable, as incorporating a rotating scrubbing element (Colin) into an eyelid treatment apparatus (Grenon II) would be expected to improve debris removal.

Ground 3: Claims 1-6 and 9-18 are obvious over Grenon II, Colin, and Shabo.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Grenon II (Application # 2007/0016254), Colin (WO 2009/066077), and Shabo (Patent 4,838,851).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the Grenon II and Colin combination by adding Shabo to address dependent claims requiring the contact member to be a "sponge" that is "porous" or "absorbent." Petitioner argued that while Grenon II and Colin provided the core electromechanical rotating device, Shabo taught the specific nature of the contact member. Shabo discloses a treatment apparatus for blepharitis using a swab "formed of liquid absorbent material," such as a "porous sponge material," with a flat tip for optimal application to the eyelid margin to remove "tenacious deposits." Shabo also taught reciprocating "to and fro" motion.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that a POSITA, having combined Grenon II and Colin to create a rotating scrubber, would find it an obvious design choice to use a known applicator, like the absorbent sponge swab from Shabo, as the contact member. This substitution would predictably improve the device's ability to not only dislodge debris but also absorb and remove it from the eye area.
    • Expectation of Success: Using a well-known applicator type (Shabo's sponge swab) with an electromechanical device (from Grenon II/Colin) was presented as a simple substitution of one known element for another that would yield predictable, successful results.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-6 and 9-18 of the ’621 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.