PTAB

IPR2025-01581

Stanley Black & Decker Inc v. Howmet Aerospace Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Blind Swage Fastener
  • Brief Description: The ’358 patent discloses blind swage fasteners comprising a deformable sleeve and a mandrel that are used to join workpieces when only one side is accessible. The purported invention is a fastener with a specifically dimensioned pull region, where the pull region has an axial length no greater than four times the diameter of the mandrel's shank region.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-20 are obvious over Corbett in view of Brewer.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Corbett (Application # 2018/0111184A1) and Brewer (Application # 2016/0215808A1).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Corbett, a reference not considered during prosecution, teaches a blind swage fastener nearly identical to the one claimed, including a sleeve (14) and a mandrel (bolt 12). Corbett’s fastener, however, features a pull region with multiple, shallow grooves, a design known to have functional drawbacks. Brewer directly addresses these problems, teaching an improved, short, single-groove pull region to replace the conventional multi-groove design. Critically, Brewer teaches that the ratio of this pull region's axial length (L) to the shank's maximum diameter (D) is preferably 0.936. Petitioner asserted this L:D ratio satisfies the limitations of claim 1 (≤4), claim 2 (≤3.8), and claim 3 (≤2). The combination also allegedly renders obvious other dependent claims, such as those reciting tapers and non-breakneck mandrels, which are features also disclosed in the references.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Brewer’s improved pull region with Corbett’s base fastener to solve the problems explicitly identified by Brewer. These known problems included tool misengagement, stripping of grooves, clogging with debris, and higher manufacturing costs associated with multi-groove designs. The combination represents the straightforward application of a known solution (Brewer) to a known device (Corbett) to achieve predictable benefits, such as improved installation reliability and reduced cost.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because the modification involved a simple substitution of one known pull region for another to perform the same function of tool engagement. The improvements in reliability and installation efficiency were predictable based on Brewer's explicit teachings.

Ground 2: Claims 1-20 are obvious over Kleinman in view of Brewer.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kleinman (Application # 2006/0251490A1) and Brewer (Application # 2016/0215808A1).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an argument parallel to Ground 1, substituting Kleinman as the primary reference. Petitioner asserted that Kleinman teaches a conventional blind swage fastener with a sleeve (21/32) and mandrel (pin 11) that includes a multi-groove pull region (18), exhibiting the same deficiencies Brewer was designed to solve. As in the first ground, incorporating Brewer's single-groove pull region with its preferred L:D ratio of 0.936 would satisfy the core dimensional limitations of claims 1-3. Petitioner further argued it would be obvious to modify Kleinman by removing its breakneck groove (16) in favor of Brewer’s taught non-breakneck design, thereby satisfying claim 5. This modification is motivated by Brewer’s teaching that incorporating a short pull region negates the primary reason for a breakneck (avoiding a long, protruding tail pin).
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation is identical to that in Ground 1. A POSITA would be motivated to improve Kleinman's known fastener by incorporating Brewer's solution to overcome the well-understood drawbacks of multi-groove pull regions and gain the advantages of a more robust, cheaper, and easier-to-install fastener.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected the combination to work for its intended purpose. Modifying Kleinman's fastener with Brewer's pull region was a predictable design choice that leveraged a known improvement to solve a known problem, with the expected outcome of enhanced performance and simplified manufacturing.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges for claims 6-7, 11, 14, and 20 based on combinations including Corbett/Kleinman, Brewer, Kendall (Patent 4,702,655), and Fulbright (Patent 5,315,755). These grounds added Kendall and Fulbright to teach specific mandrel hardness values (e.g., at least HRC 43) and the use of metal or alloy steel, arguing these were well-known properties for such fasteners.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner dedicated a significant portion of its argument to the construction of "pull region" as recited in claims 1, 3, and 16-17.
  • Proposed Construction: Petitioner argued the term "pull region" should be construed to mean "a region configured to be engaged by an installation tool."
  • Rationale: This construction was proposed to counter a potentially narrower interpretation that the "pull region" is limited to the portion of the mandrel protruding from the sleeve (the "standout"). Petitioner supported its broader, function-based construction by arguing:
    • The patent specification describes the pull region as being "configured to be engaged by an installation tool."
    • Figures in the ’358 patent show a physical offset between the end of the sleeve and the start of the pull region, suggesting the region is not defined by its position relative to the sleeve.
    • During prosecution of related U.S. and European applications, the Patent Owner allegedly defined the pull region by its function (e.g., the location of the "pull grooves") rather than as the "standout" portion.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent 11,885,358 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.