Solventum Corp v. Meac Engineering Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-01002
• Patent #: 8,858,534
• Filed: June 5, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Solventum Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
• Challenged Claims: 1-22

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Wound Closure and Drainage System
• Brief Description: The ’534 patent discloses a vacuum system for applying negative pressure to a wound. The system comprises an enclosure to seal around the wound, a venting arrangement with a flow restrictor to provide a controlled flow of ambient air, a tube, a vacuum source, and a controller for managing the system's operation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-22 are anticipated by Bitel under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Bitel (International Publication No. WO 03/030966).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Bitel, a prior art reference describing a vacuum therapy wound treatment system, discloses each and every limitation of the challenged claims.
    • For independent claim 1, Petitioner mapped Bitel's components to the claim elements. Bitel’s vacuum bandage (16) was identified as the claimed "enclosure." The combination of an air vent (64) and a hydrophobic filter (60) within Bitel’s waste receptacle (18) was argued to constitute the "venting arrangement" and "flow restrictor," as the filter inherently restricts airflow. Bitel's second tube (30) connecting the receptacle to the vacuum source (21) was mapped to the claimed "tube" and "vacuum source." Finally, Bitel’s disclosure of a "control" or "controller" for managing the vacuum source was argued to meet the "controller" limitation.
    • For independent claim 11, which requires the venting arrangement to be "located outside said enclosure," Petitioner contended that Bitel’s venting arrangement (air vent 64 and filter 60) is part of the receptacle (18), which is physically separate from and outside the wound bandage (16), thereby satisfying this limitation.
    • For independent method claim 19, Petitioner asserted that Bitel’s disclosure of the system's operation inherently teaches the claimed method steps, including providing the system and controlling the vacuum source while the system is vented.
    • For the dependent claims, Petitioner provided a detailed mapping. For example, Bitel’s hydrophobic filter (60) being located in the fluid path was argued to satisfy claim 2’s requirement for the flow restrictor to be in the tube. Bitel’s disclosure of a “flow sensor” to provide feedback to the controller was mapped to the “sensor” of claim 3. The waste receptacle (18) was identified as the “waste container” of claim 4. Bitel’s teaching that the vacuum source can be an "electrically operated...pump" was argued to meet the limitations of claims 5 and 6 requiring a pump driven by an electric motor.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is not warranted. The core argument was that the sole prior art reference, Bitel, was merely cited on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution and was never substantively applied against the claims or discussed by the Examiner. Petitioner asserted that such a "mere citation" does not weigh in favor of denial. Furthermore, Petitioner alleged that a material error occurred during prosecution of the parent application, where the Examiner failed to appreciate a key difference in claim scope (the location of the venting arrangement), which suggests the prior art was not fully considered.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-22 of the ’534 patent as unpatentable.