Ontel Products Corp v. Happy Products Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-01536
• Patent #: RE48,479
• Filed: October 16, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Ontel Products Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): Happy Products, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1–2, 8–10, 12–13, 15–17, 19–21, and 27–29

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Multiple Viewing Angle Media Support
• Brief Description: The ’479 patent discloses a media support apparatus, such as a pillow, having three distinct support sides. The apparatus is configured to be rotated about a central axis to provide three different viewing angles for a media device like a tablet.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Cannon in view of Diebel or Barcalo - Claims 1-2, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19 are obvious over Cannon in view of Diebel or Barcalo.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Cannon (Application # 2015/0115124), Diebel (Patent 8,960,421), and Barcalo (Patent 1,928,806).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Cannon, a published application from the same inventors as the ’479 patent, disclosed all major structural elements of independent claims 1 and 12. This included a media support with three support sides, each comprising a back support and an edge support, arranged around a central axis. Cannon allegedly disclosed the claimed clockwise orientation, the solid interior, and specific dimensional ranges for support widths and angles. For limitations where Cannon disclosed a range but the claims recited a specific value (e.g., plane angles of 60, 80, and 40 degrees), Petitioner contended that achieving these specific angles would have been a matter of simple calibration and optimization for a POSA.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Cannon with Diebel or Barcalo to optimize the viewing angles for user comfort. Diebel taught a foldable tablet cover with varying viewing angles (e.g., 15-60 degrees), and Barcalo taught a triangular pillow with unequal sides to create different inclinations. These references demonstrated the known benefit of providing multiple, distinct viewing angles, motivating a POSITA to adjust the plane angles disclosed in Cannon to arrive at the specific angles recited in the claims.
  • Expectation of Success: Because adjusting angles on a support stand was a well-known design approach for achieving desired viewing positions, a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Cannon’s angles to achieve the claimed configurations.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Klepar I in view of Barcalo or Dean - Claims 12, 13, 15–17, and 19 are obvious over Klepar I in view of Barcalo or Dean.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Klepar I (Application # 2015/0189781), Barcalo (Patent 1,928,806), and Dean (Patent 3,746,296).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Klepar I disclosed a multi-position, triangular stand for an electronic device that could be flipped into three different orientations to provide different viewing angles. This taught the core concept of a three-position rotatable body. The combination addressed the limitation of a body with a first, second, and third support back disposed about a central axis.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to modify the structure of Klepar I using the teachings of Barcalo (a multi-sided reading pillow) and Dean (a triangular support with raised projections) to create three distinct support backs and edges. The combination would improve the stability and versatility of the Klepar I stand by incorporating the known benefits of Barcalo's multi-inclination pillow design, resulting in the structure of claim 12.
  • Expectation of Success: Combining known support structures (Klepar I, Dean) with a known adjustable pillow concept (Barcalo) was a straightforward design choice, providing a high expectation of success in creating a stable, multi-angle media support.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Barcalo in view of Klepar I/II or Dean - Claims 20-21 and 27-29 are obvious over Barcalo in view of Klepar I, Klepar II, or Dean.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Barcalo (Patent 1,928,806), Klepar I (Application # 2015/0189781), Klepar II (Design Patent D703,216), and Dean (Patent 3,746,296).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground used Barcalo's triangular, multi-inclination reading pillow as the foundational reference. Barcalo taught the core concept of a body with three support sides providing different viewing surfaces.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Barcalo with the teachings of Klepar I and Klepar II (modern, rigid tablet stands) to adapt Barcalo’s soft pillow design for use with contemporary electronic devices. This would involve modifying Barcalo to include the more defined, fixed edge supports disclosed in Klepar I/II to securely hold a tablet. This combination allegedly rendered obvious the claimed structure of three support sides, each with a back support and an edge support, and the defined plane angles for providing different viewing positions.
  • Expectation of Success: Modifying a known pillow support by adding fixed edge structures from contemporary device stands was a predictable solution to a known problem (supporting modern tablets), ensuring an expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• “plane angle” vs. “support angle”: Petitioner highlighted a dispute over these terms. Petitioner argued that "support angle" (recited in claims 12-13, 15-17, 19) is distinct from "plane angle" (recited in claims 1-2, 8-10, 20-21, 27-29). While Patent Owner allegedly treated them as synonymous in litigation, Petitioner contended they have different meanings based on the claim language and prosecution history. This distinction was central to Petitioner's argument that the "support angle" limitation constituted new matter, affecting the claims' effective filing date. For the IPR, Petitioner proposed construing "support angle" as "the angle formed between the support back and support edge that are configured to support a media device."

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Effective Filing Dates: A central contention was that the challenged claims were not entitled to their asserted earlier priority dates. Petitioner argued that key limitations were added in later-filed applications without adequate support in the earlier specifications.
  • Claims 1–2 and 8–10: Argued to have an effective filing date no earlier than June 24, 2016, because the specific viewing angles (36°, 74°, 49°) were new matter.
  • Claims 12-13, 15-17, 19: Argued to have an effective filing date no earlier than January 30, 2019, because the term "support angle" was new matter.
  • This argument is critical because it establishes Cannon (published April 2015) as prior art to many of the challenged claims.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not decline to institute based on its discretionary authority under §314(a) or §325(d). Key reasons included:
  • The parallel district court litigation was not advanced; no trial date was set, and claim construction had not yet occurred.
  • The petition presented a compelling case of unpatentability based on prior art and arguments—specifically the priority date issue rendering Cannon prior art—that were not substantively considered by the Examiner during prosecution.
  • The Examiner made a material error by overlooking the lack of written description support for key claim terms in the priority applications, which prevented a proper obviousness analysis over references like Cannon.

7. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1–2, 8–10, 12–13, 15–17, 19–21, and 27–29 of the ’479 patent as unpatentable.