ETN Capital LLC v. FBA Operating Co

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-01445
• Patent #: 10,890,925
• Filed: September 16, 2024
• Petitioner(s): ETN Capital, LLC, d/b/a Beech Lane
• Patent Owner(s): FBA Operating Co.
• Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Vehicle Leveling System
• Brief Description: The ’925 patent relates to a system for leveling a recreational vehicle (RV). The system uses a sensor device to detect the vehicle's inclination and a wirelessly connected smart device that calculates necessary height adjustments and displays them on a graphical interface showing an image of the vehicle.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Thorpe, Clark, and Garceau - Claims 1-3, 6, 8-11, 13, 15, 16, and 19 are obvious over Thorpe in view of Clark and Garceau.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Thorpe (Application # 2008/0142768), Clark (Patent 7,305,772), and Garceau (Application # 2016/0075311).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Thorpe disclosed the foundational vehicle leveling system, comprising a sensor unit and a wireless control unit that calculates pitch and roll adjustments. However, Thorpe's control unit used a character-based display that could only show one adjustment at a time. Petitioner asserted that Clark taught a leveling system with a graphical display that simultaneously shows pitch and roll indicators next to a representative image of the vehicle. Garceau was cited for teaching the use of a modern smart device (e.g., a smartphone) as the remote control/display unit and for disclosing a digital accelerometer, whereas Thorpe taught an analog one.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references to create a more cost-effective and user-friendly product. A POSITA would replace Thorpe’s special-purpose control unit with a smart device application as taught by Garceau to reduce manufacturing costs. Further, a POSITA would replace Thorpe’s rudimentary, one-at-a-time display with the intuitive graphical interface from Clark to allow users to visualize all required adjustments simultaneously, making the leveling process faster and less error-prone.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that combining these known elements—a base leveling system, a graphical display, and a smart device platform—was a simple substitution of known components from the same field of art, which would predictably result in an improved leveling system.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Garceau and TealLevel - Claims 10-13 and 15-19 are obvious over Garceau in view of TealLevel.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Garceau (Application # 2016/0075311) and TealLevel (a 2010 user manual for a Palm device application).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground framed the obviousness argument starting with Garceau as the primary reference. Petitioner argued Garceau taught a complete RV leveling system architecture, including a multi-axis digital sensor that communicates wirelessly with a remote smart device running a software application to display the vehicle's attitude in real-time. TealLevel was presented as a specific, pre-existing example of such a software application. TealLevel’s user manual disclosed a graphical display showing an image of an RV and simultaneously displaying the calculated height adjustment amounts needed for the three lowest wheels.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA tasked with developing the software application for Garceau's system would have looked to existing RV leveling applications like TealLevel for guidance on user interface design. A POSITA would incorporate TealLevel's proven graphical display features—simultaneous display of multiple adjustment values next to a vehicle image—into Garceau's system to satisfy the known market need for a leveling device that provides simultaneous readings for multiple points on the vehicle.
  • Expectation of Success: Combining TealLevel's known user interface with Garceau's known system hardware was argued to be a combination of known elements, each performing its expected function, that would yield predictable results.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations of the same primary references (Thorpe, Clark, TealLevel, Garceau) and further in view of common knowledge. These grounds specifically targeted dependent claims 7, 14, and 20, which add limitations related to correcting height adjustments using a temperature calibration lookup table, a technique Petitioner argued was well within the knowledge of a POSITA.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "adjustment pairs": Petitioner argued this plural term requires the calculation of two or more pairs. Each "pair" must include both a height adjustment amount (a linear measurement like inches) and a corresponding direction (e.g., raise/lower).
• "simultaneously display[ing]...": Petitioner contended this phrase requires that the height adjustment amount and corresponding direction for all calculated adjustment pairs be displayed on the screen at the same time. This construction was supported by arguments from the patent's prosecution history, where the applicant distinguished prior art (Thorpe) that displayed adjustments sequentially.
• "smart device": Petitioner proposed this term be construed to mean a device with computing or processing capabilities that can network with other devices to exchange information, such as a smartphone or computer.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The petition asserted that the parallel district court litigation was in its earliest stages, with no trial date set, no answer filed by Petitioner, and no discovery having commenced. Petitioner noted a stay of litigation would be likely if the inter partes review (IPR) were instituted.
• Petitioner also argued against denial under §325(d), contending that the petition presents prior art and arguments not previously considered by the USPTO. The primary references of Clark, TealLevel, and Garceau were not before the examiner. Petitioner argued these references are more pertinent than the art of record because they teach graphical displays for leveling parked vehicles, directly addressing the limitations used to overcome rejections during prosecution, which were based on non-analogous art related to in-flight drones.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’925 patent as unpatentable.