AlPineStars Spa v. Dainese Spa

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00750
• Patent #: 12,012,065
• Filed: March 27, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Alpinestars S.p.A. and Alpinestars USA Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Dainese S.p.A.
• Challenged Claims: 1-22

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Personal Protective Device
• Brief Description: The ’065 patent relates to a personal protective device containing an inflatable casing body housed within a mesh structure. The mesh structure is comprised of two opposite mesh portions connected by a plurality of tie elements, which form inner housings that contain and shape the casing body upon inflation to form a planar protective structure.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over EP’536, CN’180, and Hatton - Claims 1-22 are obvious over EP’536 in view of CN’180, optionally combined with Hatton or the knowledge of a POSITA.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: EP’536 (EP 2879536 B1), CN’180 (CN 108968180), and Hatton (Patent 3,823,711).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that EP’536 discloses a laminar structure for protective garments that meets the core limitations of claim 1. Specifically, EP’536’s first and second textile layers (122, 124) are the claimed first and second "mesh portions," and the stitches (127) connecting them are the "tie elements." These stitches form pockets (125) which are the claimed "inner housings" for containing inflatable envelopes (20), which function as the "casing body." Petitioner contended that EP’536’s disclosure of air-permeable functional layers meets the broad definition of "mesh structure" in the ’065 patent. To the extent EP’536’s multiple, separate envelopes differ from a single casing body with multiple portions, Petitioner argued CN’180’s disclosure of a one-piece airbag with multiple strip-shaped inflation units makes the substitution obvious. If EP’536’s textile layers are not considered a "mesh," Petitioner asserted it would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement them with a known mesh material, as taught by Hatton, to improve breathability and comfort.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of EP’536 and CN’180 to simplify the overall design and operation of the protective device. Replacing EP’536’s multiple individual envelopes, each requiring a separate gas generator, with CN’180’s single inflatable device connected to one inflation chamber would create a more efficient and easily reusable system. The motivation to use a mesh material (from Hatton or general knowledge) would be to reduce weight and improve user comfort through better air permeability.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as combining the references involves the simple substitution of one known type of inflatable element (CN'180's single airbag) for another (EP'536's multiple envelopes) within a known constraining structure to achieve a predictable improvement in simplicity and reusability.

Ground 2: Obviousness over EP’297 and CN’842 - Claims 1-22 are obvious over EP’297 in view of CN’842.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: EP’297 (EP 2 621 297 B1) and CN’842 (CN 205695842).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that EP’297, which discloses a wearable airbag for a helmet, teaches the key elements of the challenged claims. EP’297’s outer bag (33) has first and second layers (39, 310) that act as the claimed "mesh portions," connected by straps (34, 35, 36) that function as the "tie elements." These straps form sections (37, 38) that serve as the "inner housings." An inner inflatable bag (30) is the claimed "casing body." Petitioner asserted that because EP’297 discloses that its outer bag can be fluid-permeable, it inherently teaches a "mesh structure." If this disclosure is considered insufficient, Petitioner contended that CN’842, which explicitly teaches an airbag suit made of "breathable mesh fabric," renders the use of such a material in EP'297's outer bag obvious.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to modify EP’297's outer bag with the explicit mesh taught by CN’842 to achieve well-known benefits in wearable protective gear, including reduced weight, reduced size, increased breathability, and improved manufacturability.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success because EP’297 already discloses that its outer bag could be fluid-permeable, making the implementation of an explicit mesh fabric from CN’842 a predictable design choice to achieve that end.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "mesh structure" / "mesh portion": Petitioner argued these terms should be construed broadly, consistent with the specification's explicit definition, as any structure "capable of creating a frame or cage that can be tensioned around the casing body, and that allows air or other gas to pass." This construction is central to Petitioner’s argument that the textile layers of EP’536 and the fluid-permeable outer bag of EP’297 meet this limitation.
• "planar structure": Petitioner argued the plain and ordinary meaning is a "flat or level surface." However, Petitioner noted that in parallel litigation, the Patent Owner has advanced a broader interpretation that includes surfaces with indentations. Petitioner contended that the prior art renders the claims obvious even under this broader construction, as the structures in EP'536 and EP'297 would form such a shape upon inflation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) based on Fintiv is not warranted. The parallel district court proceeding is in its earliest stages, with a trial date set for January 2026, well after a final written decision in this IPR would be due. Petitioner noted that no substantive orders have been entered, no Markman hearing has occurred, and no expert discovery has begun. Petitioner also stipulated that it would not pursue in district court any invalidity ground on which IPR is instituted. Finally, Petitioner argued against denial under §325(d), stating that the primary references (EP’536, CN’180, Hatton, CN’842) were not considered by the examiner during prosecution.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-22 of Patent 12,012,065 as unpatentable.