Revvo Technologies Inc v. Tire STickers LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00631
• Patent #: 11,124,027
• Filed: February 21, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Revvo Technologies, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Tire Stickers LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-13, and 15-22

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Display Assemblies and Methods for Applying the Same to Vulcanized Rubber Articles
• Brief Description: The ’027 patent discloses display assemblies for attachment to vulcanized rubber articles, such as tires, to provide aesthetic or functional features. The assembly generally comprises an outer display layer, an intermediate barrier layer, and an adhesive layer for bonding to the rubber article.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Wilson - Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 11-13, and 15-22 are obvious over Wilson.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Wilson (Patent 7,009,506).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Wilson, which discloses a patch assembly for mounting a monitoring device to a tire, teaches all limitations of the challenged claims. The vulcanized rubber patch (10) in Wilson was asserted to be the claimed "outer layer of elastomeric material." Its inherent properties, such as its color and shape (e.g., circular, tapered), were argued to constitute a "visual feature." Wilson's dual cure bonding layer (20) was identified as the "adhesive layer." Petitioner contended that the rubber patch itself, disclosed as being made from materials like natural rubber or SBR, inherently has shock-absorbing and elastomeric properties, thus satisfying the "barrier material composition" limitation under the Patent Owner's proposed claim construction. The cavity (16) for housing the monitoring device in Wilson was argued to meet the cavity-related limitations in the dependent claims.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single-reference ground).
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single-reference ground).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Bielicki - Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 are obvious over Bielicki.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Bielicki (Patent 6,726,012).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Bielicki’s multi-layered rubber identification (ID) patch for tires meets the limitations of independent claim 1. The outer rubber layers (13, 15) of Bielicki's patch were mapped to the claimed "outer layer." The laser-etched barcode (12), company logo (16), and contrasting colors of the layers (e.g., white and black) were argued to be the "visual feature." The bottom "semi-cured gum rubber" layer (17), described as a bonding layer, was identified as the claimed "adhesive layer." Petitioner argued that the rubber of Bielicki's inner layer (15), which has a lower durometer, has shock-absorbing properties and thus constitutes a "barrier material composition." The cutouts forming the barcode were asserted to be the "cavity" of dependent claim 7.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single-reference ground).
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single-reference ground).

Ground 3: Obviousness over Bielicki and Commercial Brochures - Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 11-13, 15, and 16 are obvious over Bielicki in view of the Patch Rubber Brochure and/or the Tire-Track Brochure.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Bielicki (Patent 6,726,012), the Patch Rubber Brochure, and the Tire-Track Brochure.
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground supplemented the arguments from Ground 2, using the Brochures to confirm that Bielicki’s teachings would have been understood to apply to vulcanized rubber articles. The Brochures, which describe the commercial embodiment of Bielicki's invention, explicitly show the ID patch being applied to a vulcanized tire. They describe the application process using a cold-cure vulcanizing cement, which Petitioner argued confirms that Bielicki's semi-cured gum rubber adhesive layer is a "material capable of chemically bonding with a surface of a vulcanized rubber article." The Brochures also teach method steps like buffing the tire surface and applying cement, mapping to the limitations of method claims 11 and 12.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine these references because they are explicitly interrelated. Bielicki identifies "Patch Rubber Company" as the supplier of the patch. The Patch Rubber Brochure, in turn, identifies Bielicki’s original assignee ("Tracking Systems LLC") and directs users to the website associated with the Tire-Track Brochure for more information. All three references describe the same ID patch for tire tracking.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the Brochures merely describe the commercial application and features of the same product disclosed in Bielicki, confirming its suitability for use on vulcanized tires.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claim 12 is obvious over Wilson in view of DiRocco (Patent 4,285,382) to explicitly teach preparing the tire surface. Petitioner also asserted claims 7-9, 14, and 16-23 are obvious over Bielicki, the Brochures, and Brown (Patent 6,546,982) to teach including an RFID element within a cavity in the patch.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that for the purposes of the petition, it adopted the Patent Owner's proposed constructions from the co-pending district court litigation for most key terms. This included construing "barrier material composition" as a "material composition that has properties of shock absorbance, elastomeric expansion and/or contraction." By using the Patent Owner's own constructions, Petitioner aimed to demonstrate obviousness even under a favorable interpretation for the patentee. For the term "cavity," Petitioner applied its plain and ordinary meaning.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) would be inappropriate because this is the first IPR filed against the ’027 patent and the co-pending litigation is in its early stages with all deadlines stayed.
• Petitioner further argued that denial under §325(d) is not warranted because the petition relies on prior art references—specifically Wilson and Bielicki—that were not before the Examiner during prosecution and are not cumulative to the art that was considered.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-13, and 15-22 of the ’027 patent as unpatentable.