Bestway USA Inc v. Intex Marketing Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: PGR2017-00029
• Patent #: 9,567,762
• Filed: June 2, 2017
• Petitioner(s): Bestway (USA), Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Intex Marketing Ltd.
• Challenged Claims: 1-29

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Inflatable Pool with Improved Drain
• Brief Description: The ’762 patent discloses an inflatable pool with an improved floor drain system. The system uses a drainage conduit with a low-profile, oblong midsection to drain water to a location away from the pool, purportedly reducing inconvenience and preventing the floor area from becoming wet.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 6-9, and 22-27 are obvious over Daoping 479 in view of Ball.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Daoping 479 (Chinese Patent No. CN 202990479U) and Ball (Application # 2006/0096019A1).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Daoping 479 taught all elements of independent claims 1 and 9 except for the specific shape of the drainage conduit's midsection. Daoping 479 disclosed an inflatable pool with internal and external walls, a floor, and a floor drain with a drainage pipe (conduit) extending from an interior inlet to an exterior outlet, including a sealing plug. To meet the remaining limitation—a midsection pipe with a flat portion and an adjacent rounded portion (i.e., a low-profile, oblong shape)—Petitioner cited Ball. Ball disclosed a low-profile drain assembly for a tub with an oblong profile (e.g., oval or rectangular) specifically to reduce the possibility of bumping or damaging the connection.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the low-profile, oblong drain of Ball with the inflatable pool drain system of Daoping 479. The motivation was to solve a known problem: a standard circular drain conduit creates a pronounced bump on the pool floor and is prone to rolling or damage. Applying Ball’s low-profile solution would predictably decrease the height of the ridge on the pool floor and increase stability, a mere combination of known elements to achieve a predictable result.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Daoping 479's drain with Ball's low-profile shape, as it involved applying a known solution (low-profile drains) to a known problem (obtrusive drains) using conventional design principles.

Ground 2: Claims 3-5, 7-8, 10-13, 15, 17-20, and 28-29 are obvious over Daoping 479 in view of Ball and Citrawireja.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Daoping 479 (Chinese Patent No. CN 202990479U), Ball (Application # 2006/0096019A1), and Citrawireja (Application # 2009/0277974A1).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Daoping 479 and Ball to address dependent claims requiring a conical structure at the inlet end. For example, claim 3 recited "the inlet end includes a conical portion having a wide end and a narrow end." Petitioner argued that while Daoping 479 and Ball established the base combination, Citrawireja supplied this missing element. Citrawireja disclosed a conical-shaped stabilizing housing for a lawn sprinkler, teaching its use for protecting piping connections from damage due to external forces (e.g., being kicked). The housing had a conical shape with a wide base and narrow top.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would be motivated to add the protective conical housing of Citrawireja to the drain inlet of the Daoping 479/Ball combination. Citrawireja explicitly taught that its housing was not limited to sprinklers but could benefit any piping application to stabilize and protect internal elements. A POSITA would apply this teaching to the pool drain's inlet connection to predictably reduce the possibility of damage to the elbow joint, a known area of weakness.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in adding a conical protective element to a pipe joint, as this was a straightforward application of a known stabilizing structure for its intended purpose.

Ground 3: Claims 16-21 and 28-29 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Not applicable (non-prior art ground).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Lack of Written Description (§112(a)): Petitioner argued that independent claim 16 lacked adequate written description. The claim, as issued after an examiner amendment, recited two distinct conical elements: (1) an "inlet cap having a truncated cone-shaped body portion" and (2) an "inlet end [that] includes a conical portion." Petitioner contended the specification only described embodiments with a single conical element (the inlet cap) and failed to describe or depict a floor drain with two separate conical elements. Therefore, the inventor did not possess the claimed invention as of the filing date.
  • Indefiniteness (§112(b)): Petitioner also argued that claim 16 was indefinite because the term "positioned over" was unclear. The claim required the "inlet cap having a truncated cone-shaped body portion" to be "positioned over" the "inlet end [that] includes a conical portion." With two separate conical structures, the specification and prosecution history allegedly provided no objective boundaries for how one cone is "positioned over" another, leaving a POSITA to speculate on the scope of the claim.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations incorporating Daoping 409 (Chinese Patent No. CN 203296409U) to teach a soft/hard portion at the drain inlet for a better seal, and Wu (Patent 6,978,494) for an alternative sealing plug design.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "inlet cap" (claims 7, 10, 13, 15): Petitioner argued this term was not clearly defined by the specification and should be given its ordinary and customary meaning based on dictionary definitions. Petitioner proposed the construction "something that serves as a cover or protection for an end portion of a drain inlet" or "a structure that overlays or covers an end portion of a drain inlet." This broader construction was central to arguing that structures in the prior art, such as elbow joints or valve housings, met the "inlet cap" limitation.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of Post Grant Review and cancellation of claims 1-29 of the ’762 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 and 112.