PTAB

IPR2025-01407

Crüzr Saddles LLC v. Tethrd LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Harness Rope Structures
  • Brief Description: The ’175 patent discloses a bridge rope assembly for a hunting harness. The assembly features a main rope body with a fully buried eye splice and a separate closed-loop friction hitch (e.g., a Prusik knot) for adjustability, both typically made from ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) rope.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Petitioner’s primary argument is that the ’175 patent is not entitled to its claimed January 7, 2020 priority date due to a break in the continuity of the priority claim. Petitioner asserted the correct priority date is April 15, 2021. Consequently, Petitioner presented Ground 1 based on the 2021 priority date and, in the alternative, presented Grounds 2 and 3 assuming the earlier 2020 priority date.

Ground 1: Anticipation and Obviousness over Tethrd’s Own Disclosures - Claims 1-14 are anticipated and/or obvious over Tethrd Phantom Saddle videos and DIY Utilibridge references.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Phantom Review (a YouTube video, Ex. 1133), Phantom Bridge Knot (a SaddleHunter forum post, Ex. 1116), and DIY Utilibridge (a YouTube video, Ex. 1125, and related SaddleHunter forum posts, Exs. 1073-1075).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the primary references (Phantom Review and Phantom Bridge Knot), which describe Patent Owner’s own Tethrd Phantom saddle sold before the asserted April 15, 2021 priority date, disclose every element of independent claim 1 and several dependent claims. These references allegedly show a fully buried spliced eye loop made of Amsteel (UHMWPE) at one end and a continuous loop Amsteel friction hitch (Prusik knot) at the other, rendering claims 1, 4-6, 10-11, and 14 anticipated or obvious. The secondary DIY Utilibridge references, which describe how to make a replica of the Phantom’s bridge, were argued to disclose the quantitative limitations of the remaining dependent claims (e.g., rope length, circumference), rendering them obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA reviewing the Phantom saddle would be motivated to consult the DIY Utilibridge references for the express purpose of creating a bridge with the same functional characteristics, including its specific dimensions.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success as the DIY references provide explicit instructions and material lists for replicating the Phantom saddle’s bridge.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Prior Art Saddles and Known Modifications - Claims 1-14 are obvious over Aero Hunter Kestrel saddle references in view of various public disclosures of modifications.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tree Saddle Bridge Basics (a YouTube video, Ex. 1134), combined with various SaddleHunter and HammockForums posts (e.g., Exs. 1061, 1082, 1099, 1107) and modification videos (e.g., Exs. 1126, 1129, 1130).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Tree Saddle Bridge Basics discloses a basic hunting saddle (the Aero Hunter Kestrel) with a fixed-length rope bridge. The numerous secondary references from online enthusiast communities allegedly disclose all the remaining claimed features as well-known solutions to common problems with basic saddles. These modifications include: replacing fixed-length bridges with adjustable friction hitches, creating fully buried splices to eliminate bumps, using strong and lightweight Amsteel (UHMWPE) rope for both the bridge and the friction hitch, and specific dimensions for these components.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine these references to solve known problems with fixed-length, non-fully buried bridges, such as discomfort from improper length, snagging on equipment, and potential weakness at spliced joints. The goal was to create a stronger, lighter, smoother, and adjustable saddle bridge, which the prior art modifications provided.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination involved applying predictable and well-documented rope splicing techniques and modifications common in the analogous arts of arboriculture and hammock camping to a hunting saddle.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Pre-Grace Period Art - Claims 1-14 are obvious over Tethrd’s earlier Mantis saddle and other art published before January 6, 2019.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mantis Saddle Setup (a YouTube video, Ex. 1131), ArboristSite Splicing Experiments (a forum post, Ex. 1024), Samson Splicing Instructions (Ex. 1018), and various other YouTube videos and forum posts published before the one-year grace period of the assumed 2020 priority date.
  • Core Argument for this Ground: This ground is an alternative to Ground 2, relying only on prior art that predates the §102(b)(1)(A) one-year grace period.
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the Tethrd Mantis saddle, introduced in 2018, included an Amsteel bridge. The ArboristSite and Samson references taught the community how to create fully buried eye-and-eye splices with Amsteel rope. Other forum posts and videos from 2018 and earlier allegedly showed the use of friction hitches for adjustability and the benefits of using Amsteel for all components.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): The motivation was identical to that in Ground 2: to improve upon existing saddle bridges by making them adjustable, stronger, and smoother using well-known techniques and materials that were widely discussed in the relevant communities.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success for the same reasons as in Ground 2, as this ground also relies on the application of conventional rope modification techniques.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner argued that several claim terms required construction for the Board to properly evaluate the prior art.

  • “Being configured to engage”: Petitioner proposed this term means “spliced to interlock with.” This construction was based on the specification and figures, which allegedly show the eye loop and friction hitch are not merely attached but are permanently interlocked with the harness loops via splicing, a key structural limitation not taught by simple attachments shown in some prior art.
  • “Adjacent to”: Petitioner proposed this term means “within a distance of 3.0 inches or less from.” This construction was derived from explicit ranges provided in the patent’s abstract and detailed description, which define the proximity of the two rope ends after splicing.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

Petitioner argued that the PTAB is the ideal forum to resolve this dispute and should not exercise discretionary denial. The arguments centered on the PTAB’s unique expertise in evaluating two key issues central to the petition: (1) complex patent application priority chains and determining the correct priority date when a break in continuity is alleged, and (2) the status of non-traditional prior art, such as YouTube videos and public message forum posts, as printed publications under §102.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-14 of Patent 11,964,175 as unpatentable.