Deere & Co v. Davids Dozer V Loc System Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-01442
• Patent #: 10,533,300
• Filed: September 19, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Deere & Company
• Patent Owner(s): David Armas
• Challenged Claims: 1-4

2. Patent Overview

• Title: AUTOMATIC GRADER STABILIZER
• Brief Description: The ’300 patent describes a method for controlling a dozer blade on a skid steer vehicle equipped with an automatic grade control system. The core concept involves immobilizing the vehicle’s main lift arm against a physical stop in a lowered position, thereby preventing the arm from providing lifting force, while the automatic grade control system adjusts the dozer blade’s height by controlling its pitch axis.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1A: Claims 1-4 are obvious over Funk in view of Lewis.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Funk (Application # 2016/0273196) and Lewis (Patent 11,111,646).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Funk teaches a skid steer vehicle with an automatic leveling control system that can adjust either the lift arm height or the blade tilt angle to maintain a grading edge at a specific elevation. Lewis was argued to teach a control system for a skid steer that blocks upward movement of the main arm against a stop when in a lowered position. Lewis allegedly discloses this to enable the maximum horizontal load rating of the arm assembly when using an implement like a dozer blade. Petitioner asserted that the combination of Funk’s automatic grade control system with Lewis’s method of immobilizing the main arm renders claim 1 obvious.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Lewis's teachings with Funk's system for several predictable benefits. The primary motivation was to increase the horizontal load rating of Funk's grading vehicle, a known issue in earth grading. Further, Funk was said to invite immobilizing one adjustment mechanism (the lift arm) to rely solely on the other (blade tilt) for grade control. This simplifies control, improves accuracy by reducing degrees of freedom, and is easily implemented as a retro-fit.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involves applying a known solution (immobilizing a lift arm for stability) to a known system (an automatic grading vehicle) to achieve a predictable improvement in performance.

Ground 1B: Claims 1-4 are obvious over Funk, Lewis, and Stratienko.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Funk (Application # 2016/0273196), Lewis (Patent 11,111,646), and Stratienko (Patent 4,185,539).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground incorporated the analysis of Ground 1A and added Stratienko to provide an explicit teaching of a mechanical lock. Stratienko was argued to disclose a mechanical, infinite-position locking device for a hydraulic cylinder rod, which can be adapted to standard actuators. Petitioner asserted this device provides a robust mechanism for "preventing the ability of the main arm from providing any lifting force" and "locking the main arm," as required by claims 1-4.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, having combined Funk and Lewis, would be motivated to add Stratienko’s mechanical lock to create a more reliable and redundant system. While Lewis suggests hydraulic locking, a POSITA would recognize the potential for hydraulic fluid leaks to cause undesirable arm movement. Stratienko’s mechanical lock was presented as a known solution to this problem, providing a durable and inexpensive failsafe that is universally adaptable to the hydraulic cylinders used in skid steers.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was asserted to be predictable, as it involved incorporating a known type of mechanical lock into a hydraulic system to prevent unwanted movement, a standard engineering practice for improving system reliability.

Ground 2A: Claims 1-4 are obvious over Eckrote in view of Lumpkins.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Eckrote (Patent 10,662,614) and Lumpkins (Application # 2006/0070746).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Eckrote discloses a skid steer with an arm assembly that rests against mechanical stops on the chassis in a "fully lowered position," which supports the arms when handling heavy loads. Eckrote's controller can "block movement of the arms" to ensure they remain in this lowered position. Lumpkins was argued to teach a dozer blade automatic grade control (AGC) system that uses sensors and a controller to automatically adjust blade position. The combination of Eckrote’s stabilized arm system with Lumpkins’ AGC was asserted to teach all elements of the challenged claims.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Lumpkins’ AGC with Eckrote’s skid steer due to market demand and established design trends. Petitioner argued that by 2018, AGC systems were ubiquitous and commercially essential for grading equipment. Adding a well-known AGC system like that taught by Lumpkins to Eckrote's vehicle would be an obvious and necessary step to create a competitive product. Eckrote's own disclosure of a "controller" for the hydraulics was said to naturally lead a POSITA to references like Lumpkins for implementing full AGC functionality.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because the combination merely automates a known grading vehicle (Eckrote) using a standard, commercially widespread technology (Lumpkins' AGC) to achieve the known benefits of faster and more accurate grading.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations including Orser (Patent 5,169,277) with both the Funk/Lewis and Eckrote/Lumpkins combinations (Grounds 1C, 1D, 2C, 2D). Orser was primarily used to introduce a manual mechanical arm lock, with Petitioner arguing a POSITA would be motivated to add it for redundancy and to prevent arm movement resulting from hydraulic leak or mechanical play.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §325(d) - Advanced Bionics: Petitioner argued against discretionary denial because the primary prior art references asserted (Funk, Lewis, Stratienko, Orser, Eckrote, Lumpkins) were never considered or cited during the original prosecution. These references were asserted to provide new and distinct teachings that address features the Examiner erroneously found missing from the prior art.
• §314(a) - Fintiv: Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors. It was noted that the parallel district court litigation was in its infancy, had been stayed, and that no trial date has been scheduled. Petitioner contended these factors weigh heavily against denial and favor institution of the IPR.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4 of the ’300 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.