PTAB

IPR2025-00667

Vertiv Corp v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: COOLING SYSTEM
Brief Description: The ’287 patent discloses methods and systems for managing heat in rooms housing computer systems, such as data centers. The invention involves using a plurality of heat exchanger units that control cooling fluid temperature and air delivery in response to temperatures sensed at various locations within the room.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Newton (Patent 3,384,155).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Newton, which discloses a multi-zone air conditioning system for buildings, teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Newton’s system uses multiple air conditioning units (heat exchangers) in different zones, supplied with chilled water (cooling fluid) from a central chiller (air conditioning unit). Each unit includes temperature sensors (bulbs 40) that monitor the local zone temperature. In response to these sensed temperatures, the system individually manipulates the mass flow rate of the chilled water to each unit using dedicated control valves (valve 36) or pumps (pump 70) to control the cooling effect. Petitioner asserted this maps directly to the method of independent claim 1 and that dependent claims 2-4 and 7-9 are also disclosed through Newton’s teachings on varying the central chiller output, determining if temperatures are within a range, and using pluralities of valves or pumps.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Newton (Patent 3,384,155) and the general knowledge of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that claims 5 and 6 depend from claim 4 (disclosed by Newton) and add the limitation of increasing or decreasing the cooling fluid temperature in response to a sum of sensed temperatures being below or above a predetermined range. While Newton does not explicitly teach summing temperatures, it discloses assessing the relative heating or cooling demand across multiple zones to determine whether to circulate hot or cold water, which Petitioner argued is an analogous assessment of aggregate thermal load.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, starting with Newton's system for managing varying heat loads, would be motivated to assess the total cooling demand to optimize system efficiency. Using a sum of temperatures is one of a limited, well-known, and simple number of ways to quantify this aggregate demand.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in implementing this change. It would involve a routine modification of Newton’s existing control logic, which already includes temperature sensors for each unit and a central control system capable of adjusting the circulating water temperature based on overall demand.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Shimizu (Patent 5,317,907).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Shimizu’s air conditioning system, comprising an ambient unit and multiple personal units, anticipates the challenged claims. The system provides a plurality of heat exchanger units (the ambient and personal units) supplied with cooling fluid (refrigerant) from an outdoor compressor unit. Each unit has temperature sensors (sensors 35 and 48) that detect local temperatures. In response, the system individually manipulates the mass flow rate of refrigerant to each unit via dedicated flow control valves (valves 31 and 41). Further, Shimizu teaches varying the output of the main air conditioning unit (the compressor) to control the overall refrigerant temperature based on the total calculated cooling load from all units, thereby anticipating claims 2 and 4. The use of multiple, independently controlled valves anticipates claims 7 and 9.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional anticipation challenge (claims 1, 3, 7, and 9) based on Baer (Application # 2001/0042616), which discloses rack-level heat exchangers for computer rooms that individually modulate coolant flow based on local temperature sensors.

"air conditioning unit": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "any device that supplies cooling fluid to a plurality of heat exchanger units."
"cooling fluid": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "any suitable heat transfer fluid, e.g., chilled water, R134a refrigerant, and ethylene glycol solutions."

§314(a) (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, asserting that the parallel district court litigation is at an early stage with minimal investment by the parties. With a trial date scheduled for April 2026, a final written decision in the IPR would issue less than five months after trial, weighing against denial. Petitioner also contended its arguments are compelling and that it would stipulate not to pursue the same grounds in the district court litigation, mitigating concerns of duplicative efforts.
§325(d): Petitioner argued that denial under §325(d) is unwarranted because the primary prior art references asserted in the petition (Newton, Shimizu, and Baer) were not before the Examiner during the original prosecution of the ’287 patent, and no comparable art was considered.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-9 of the ’287 patent as unpatentable.