Filed: March 1, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`MERAS ENGINEERING, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CH2O, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Meras Engineering, Inc.
`By: Michelle E. Armond
`
`Bridget A. Smith
`
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Telephone: 949-760-0404
`Facsimile: 949-760-9502
`Email: BoxMERAS@knobbe.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`U.S. Patent No. RE45,550
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE45,550
`
`IPR2017-01000
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1 
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ............. 2 
`A. 
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ..................................... 2 
`B. 
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ............................................... 2 
`C. 
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) .............................. 3 
`D. 
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ........................................ 4 
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .......................... 4 
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................... 4 
`A.  Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ...................................... 4 
`B. 
`Claims and Statutory Grounds (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)
`& (b)(2)) ................................................................................................. 5 
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) ..................................... 6 
`C. 
`D.  Unpatentability of Construed Claims
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)) ..................................................................... 6 
`Supporting Evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5))................................... 6 
`E. 
`V. THERE IS MORE THAN A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT
`THE CLAIMS OF the RE550 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ................ 7 
`A. 
`Legal Standard for Obviousness ............................................................ 7 
`B. 
`The Purported Invention of the RE550 Patent ....................................... 7 
`C. 
`Overview of Iverson (Ex. 1002) ............................................................. 8 
`D.  Overview of Miller (Ex. 1003) ............................................................... 9 
`E. 
`Overview the Prosecution History of the RE550 Patent ...................... 10 
`1. 
`Original Prosecution of the ’266 Patent ..................................... 11 
`2. 
`Reexamination Proceedings for ’266 Patent .............................. 11 
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d.)
`
`Page No.
`
`3. 
`
`
`
`
`
`F. 
`G. 
`
`H. 
`I. 
`J. 
`
`Reissue Proceedings on ’266 Patent Resulting In The
`RE550 Patent .............................................................................. 14 
`Overview of Prior Litigation Involving Iverson .................................. 15 
`This IPR Is Not Redundant In View of the Prior Patent
`Office Proceedings ............................................................................... 16 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................ 19 
`Claim Construction .............................................................................. 19 
`Ground: Claims 1, 5-10, and 13-27 Are Obvious Over
`Iverson In View of Miller ..................................................................... 20 
`1. 
`Differences Between The Prior Art And The RE550
`Patent .......................................................................................... 20 
`a. 
`“a drip irrigation network comprising
`intermittent water flow and designed to supply
`irrigation water . . . to plants” (Claims 1, 10) ................. 20 
`“discharge emitters” (Claims 1, 10) ................................ 21 
`b. 
`“HEDP” (Claim 8) ........................................................... 22 
`c. 
`Claims 1 and 10 Are Obvious Because CH2O Admits
`that Iverson Does Not Require Solely A “Fast”
`Reaction ..................................................................................... 23 
`Claims 13 and 22 Are Obvious Because Iverson
`Discloses A Concentration of Chlorine Dioxide
`Within the Claimed Range ......................................................... 24 
`Claims 10[e2], 14-19, 21, and 23-26 Are Obvious
`Because The Claimed Concentrations Could Readily
`Have Been Achieved Through Routine
`Experimentation ......................................................................... 26 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d.)
`
`Page No.
`
`5. 
`
`Reasons to Combine Iverson and Miller .................................... 29 
`a. 
`Drip Irrigation Systems And Emitters ............................. 30 
`b. 
`Use Of The Phosphonate HEDP ...................................... 31 
`c. 
`Additional Reasons To Combine Iverson And
`Miller ............................................................................... 32 
`Claim Charts .............................................................................. 33 
`6. 
`Secondary Considerations, Even if Considered, Fail to
`Overcome the Prima Facie Evidence of Obviousness ........................ 63 
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 64 
`
`K. 
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Page No(s).
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`In re Aller,
`220 F.2d 454 (C.C.P.A. 1955) ................................................................ 27, 28, 29
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ........................................................................................ 19
`
`In re Geisler,
`116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................... 25, 27
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .................................................................................................. 7
`
`KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................................. 7
`
`Leapfrog Enters. v. Fisher-Price,
`485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 63
`
`Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg.,
`864 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................ 63
`
`In re Peterson,
`315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................... 25, 27
`
`Purdue Pharma v. Epic Pharma,
`811 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... 22
`
`Stamps.com v. Endicia,
`437 F. App’x 897 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 63
`
`In re Woodruff,
`919 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990) .................................................................... 25, 27
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ...................................................................................................... 1, 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................. 5, 6, 7
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont’d.)
`
`Page No(s).
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.68 ......................................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................................................................................. 2, 3, 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ............................................................................................... 1, 19
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................. 4, 5, 6
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`Meras v. CH2O
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. RE45,550
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE45,550
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,767,470 (Iverson et al.)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,036,740 (Miller et al.)
`
`Declaration of Aaron Rosenblatt
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Aaron Rosenblatt
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,601,266 with reexamination certificate
`
`USPTO File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,601,266
`
`USPTO File History for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`7,601,266
`
`USPTO File History for U.S. Patent No. RE45,550
`
`Opening Claim Construction Brief of CH2O, Inc. in
`CH2O, Inc. v. Meras Engineering Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-
`08418 (C.D. Cal.) (filed 4/13/2015)
`
`CH2O’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief in
`CH2O, Inc. v. Meras Engineering Inc, Case No. 2:13-cv-
`08418 (C.D. Cal.) (filed 4/27/2015)
`
`Order re Claim Construction in
`CH2O, Inc. v. Meras Engineering Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-
`08418 (C.D. Cal.) (filed 7/22/2015)
`
`GEORGE C. WHITE, HANDBOOK OF CHLORINATION AND
`ALTERNATIVE DISINFECTANTS (4th ed. 1999) [excerpted]
`
`Konstantinos D. Demadis, Degradation of Phosphonate-
`Based Scale Inhibitor Additives in the Presence of Oxidizing
`biocides: “Collateral Damages” in Industrial Water Systems,
`42 SEPARATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 1639-49 (2007)
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 1
`
`

`

`Meras v. CH2O
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. RE45,550
`1015
`Declaration of Dr. R. Thomas Fernandez
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`CV of Dr. R. Thomas Fernandez
`
`Supplemental Claim Construction Brief of CH2O, Inc. in
`CH2O, Inc. v. Meras Engineering Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-
`08418 (C.D. Cal.) (filed 10/12/2015)
`
`CH2O’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief for
`Supplemental Markman Proceedings in
`CH2O, Inc. v. Meras Engineering Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-
`08418 (C.D. Cal.) (filed 10/26/2015)
`
`Order re Claim Construction in
`CH2O, Inc. v. Meras Engineering Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-
`08418 (C.D. Cal.) (filed 12/29/2015)
`
`CH2O’s Slides for Claim Construction Hearing in
`CH2O, Inc. v. Meras Engineering Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-
`08418 (C.D. Cal.) (dated 5/18/2015)
`
`David A. Rickard, Review of phosphorus acid and its salts as
`fertilizer materials, Journal Of Plant Nutrition, Vol. 23, Iss. 2
`(2000)
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 2
`
`

`

`Meras v. CH2O
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. RE45,550
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Petitioner Meras
`
`Engineering, Inc. respectfully requests inter partes review of Claims 1, 5-10, and
`
`13-27 of U.S. Patent No. RE45,550 (“RE550 Patent”), which is purportedly owned
`
`by CH2O, Inc.
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`The RE550 Patent relates to agricultural irrigation systems. The patent
`
`discloses and claims a chemical reaction of two well-known chemicals in order to
`
`remove bacterial growths (biofilm) and mineral deposits that can clog drip
`
`irrigation systems. The RE550 Patent teaches that combining solutions of a
`
`chlorite salt and phosphonate is effective in removing biofilm and mineral
`
`deposits. However, the same chemicals, same chemical reaction, and same result
`
`of removing biofilm and mineral deposits were disclosed in Patent Owner CH2O’s
`
`prior Iverson patent, which is § 102(b) prior art. All of the claim limitations are
`
`obvious over Iverson in view of the Miller patent, which discloses use of mineral
`
`antiscalant chemicals in a drip irrigation system. The Patent Office has never
`
`considered patentability in view of Iverson and Miller. The RE550 Patent should
`
`never have been issued.
`
`The RE550 Patent’s unpatentability is reinforced by CH2O’s inconsistent
`
`and contradictory statements in other proceedings. The Patent Office recognized
`
`that Iverson is “[t]he closest prior art” to the RE550 Patent, Ex. 1009 at 33, and
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Meras v. CH2O
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. RE45,550
`
`used Iverson and other art to reject claims in reissue and reexamination
`
`proceedings. However, the Patent Office has never had the opportunity to consider
`
`CH2O’s litigation admissions about Iverson that contradicted CH2O’s statements
`
`about Iverson to the Patent Office. See infra §V.G. CH2O also exploited its
`
`inconsistent positions in different Patent Office proceedings with different
`
`examiners, adopting amendments to overcome Iverson in one proceeding before
`
`disavowing them in the next. In short, CH2O’s repeated contradictions have
`
`prevented the Patent Office from considering Iverson on a complete record.
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests the Board institute IPR so the Board can
`
`consider for the first time CH2O’s inconsistent representations about Iverson and
`
`finally declare the RE550 Patent to be unpatentable.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real party-in-interest is Petitioner Meras Engineering, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`The following proceedings may affect, or be affected by, the decisions in
`
`this proceeding:
`
`The RE550 Patent was reissued from U.S. Patent No. 7,601,266. The ’266
`
`Patent was previously asserted in a lawsuit captioned CH2O, Inc. v. AquaPulse
`
`System, No. 3:11-cv-05437 (W.D. Wash.). The case was administratively closed
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Meras v. CH2O
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. RE45,550
`
`on May 2, 2013. The Patent Office conducted reexamination proceedings
`
`concerning the ’266 Patent and issued a reexamination certificate on May 9, 2013.
`
`The Iverson patent was asserted against Petitioner in a lawsuit captioned
`
`CH2O, Inc. v. Meras Engineering, Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-08418 (C.D. Cal.). The
`
`case is pending.
`
`Petitioner is not aware of any prior litigation or PTAB proceedings involving
`
`the RE550 Patent.
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Michelle E. Armond (Reg. No. 53,954)
`2mea@knobbe.com
`BoxMERAS@knobbe.com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Telephone: (949) 760-0404
`Facsimile: (949) 760-9502
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Bridget A. Smith (Reg. No. 63,574)
`2bzs@knobbe.com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Telephone: (949) 760-0404
`Facsimile: (949) 760-9502
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this
`
`Petition.
`
` The above identified lead and back-up counsel are registered
`
`practitioners associated with Customer No. 20,995 listed in that Power of Attorney.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Meras v. CH2O
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. RE45,550
`
`D.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`
`
`Service information for lead and back-up counsel is provided in the
`
`designation of lead and back-up counsel above. Petitioner hereby consents to
`
`service by email at the following email address: BoxMERAS@knobbe.com.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`The fee in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition has been paid: $26,200
`
`(including $9,000 request fee; $14,000 post-institution fee; $400 fee for requesting
`
`review of 22 claims; $2,800 post-institution fee for requesting review of 22
`
`claims). The undersigned authorize a payment for any additional fees that may be
`
`due in connection with this Petition to be charged to Deposit Account No. 11-1410.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the RE550 Patent is available for IPR and that
`
`it is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds identified herein.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner certifies that (1) Petitioner is not the owner of the RE550
`
`Patent; (2) Petitioner has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of any
`
`claim of the RE550 Patent; (3) neither Petitioner, nor any privy, was served with a
`
`complaint alleging infringement of the RE550 Patent more than one year prior to
`
`the filing of this Petition; (4) the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) do
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Meras v. CH2O
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. RE45,550
`
`not prohibit this IPR; and (5) this Petition is being filed after the RE550 Patent was
`
`granted.
`
`B. Claims and Statutory Grounds (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) & (b)(2))
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests institution of IPR of Claims 1, 5-10, and
`
`13-27 of the RE550 Patent in view of the following references, which are prior art
`
`for the following reasons:
`
` U.S. Patent 6,767,470 to Iverson et al. (“Iverson”) (Ex. 1002). Iverson was
`
`issued by the U.S. Patent Office on July 27, 2004. Ex. 1002 at 1. The
`
`RE550 Patent was originally filed as U.S. Patent No. 7,601,266 on April 20,
`
`2006 and does not claim priority to an earlier application. Because Iverson
`
`is a U.S. Patent dated more than one year before the earliest filing date of the
`
`RE550 Patent, it qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).1
`
` U.S. Patent 6,036,740 to Miller et al. (“Miller”) (Ex. 1003). Miller was
`
`issued by the U.S. Patent Office on March 14, 2000. Ex. 1003 at 1. Miller
`
`is a U.S. Patent dated more than one year before the earliest filing date of the
`
`RE550 Patent and qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`1
`Reference to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 throughout this Petition are to the
`
`pre-AIA versions of these statutes, which are applicable to the RE550 Patent.
`
`
`
`Unless indicated, emphases have been added to quoted material.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Meras v. CH2O
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. RE45,550
`
`The proposed statutory ground of rejection for the RE550 Patent is: Claims
`
`1, 5-10, and 13-27 of the RE550 Patent are unpatentable as obvious over Iverson in
`
`view of Miller under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`C. Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3))
`
`See Section V.I.
`
`D. Unpatentability of Construed Claims (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4))
`
`See Section V.
`
`E.
`
`Supporting Evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5))
`
`Petitioner provides an Exhibit List identifying its supporting exhibits.
`
`Petitioner also submits the declarations of Aaron Rosenblatt (Ex. 1004) and Dr. R.
`
`Thomas Fernandez (Ex. 1015) in support of this Petition in accordance with 37
`
`C.F.R. § 1.68.
`
`Mr. Rosenblatt is Principal at Gordon & Rosenblatt, LLC. Ex. 1004 ¶4. He
`
`has over 25 years of experience in the water treatment industry, specializing in
`
`biofilms and water treatment, id. ¶¶4-11, and is very familiar with the use of
`
`phosphonates as an antiscalant, id. ¶¶4, 9-10.
`
`Dr. Fernandez is Professor of Horticulture at Michigan State University. Ex.
`
`1015 ¶4. He has extensive experience in water treatment and quality issues in
`
`agriculture, including drip irrigation systems. Id. ¶¶3-15.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Meras v. CH2O
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. RE45,550
`
`V. THERE IS MORE THAN A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CLAIMS OF THE RE550 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`Claims 1, 5-10, and 13-27 of the RE550 Patent are unpatentable as obvious
`
`in view of Iverson and Miller, as explained below. The remaining claims were
`
`cancelled by CH2O in reexamination or reissue.
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard for Obviousness
`
`A claim is obvious “if the differences between the subject matter sought to
`
`be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`
`been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103. The
`
`obviousness analysis includes an assessment of the Graham factors: (1) the scope
`
`and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claims and the prior
`
`art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, objective
`
`indicia of nonobviousness. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007)
`
`(citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966)).
`
`B.
`
`The Purported Invention of the RE550 Patent
`
`The RE550 Patent purports to describe and claim “a method of promoting
`
`unrestricted flow of irrigation water” in an irrigation system. Ex. 1001 at 1:15-21.
`
`The patent describes the problem of a loss of flow rate in an irrigation system due
`
`to “biological fouling” buildup and “the formation of mineral deposits.” Id. at
`
`1:32-41. A “drop in the flow rate will damage the plants.” Id. at 1:29-30. The
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Meras v. CH2O
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. RE45,550
`
`“principal object” of the patent is to address the problem of “eliminating both
`
`biofilm and mineral deposit restrictions and plugging of low flow emitters in
`
`irrigation networks.” Id. at 1:45-49.
`
`The RE550 Patent purports to provide a chemical solution to sanitize the
`
`water and remove mineral deposits. “The invention comprises admixing a biofilm
`
`reducing agent (BRA) and a mineral deposit distorting agent (MDDA) to the
`
`irrigation water.” Id. at 1:55-57. “The BRA agent substantially eliminates biofilm
`
`formation in the system. The MDDA agent causes mineral deposits that are formed
`
`to be amorphous.” Id. at 1:57-60. The MDDA agent may be a phosphate-based
`
`compound,
`
`Id. at 2:5-13,
`
`teaching
`
`that “[a] preferred phosphonate
`
`is
`
`2 phosphonobutane-12, 4 tricarboxylic acid (PBTC),” Id. at 2:13-14. The BRA is
`
`an oxidizer that can include chlorine dioxide and chlorite salts. Id. at 3:12-16.
`
`C. Overview of Iverson (Ex. 1002)
`
`Iverson is a prior art U.S. Patent also assigned to CH2O. Iverson is directed
`
`to adding solutions of sodium chlorite and an acid to irrigation water to remove
`
`bio-films and mineral deposits in an irrigation system. Iverson notes the problem
`
`that irrigation systems “often become fouled and/or obstructed by mineral scale
`
`deposits and/or biological growths and/or bio-films.” Ex. 1002 at 1:23-25. As a
`
`result, these agricultural “irrigation systems” experience “water flow [that] is
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Meras v. CH2O
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. RE45,550
`
`reduced to a level where valuable crops receive insufficient watering and perish
`
`from dehydration.” Id. at 1:25-28.
`
`To solve this problem, Iverson teaches mixing two chemicals in the
`
`irrigation system: “a sodium chlorite solution with a second solution containing an
`
`acid to make a reacted mixture.” Id. at 1:44-46. Iverson teaches that the acid in
`
`the second solution includes PBTC (2-phosphonobutane-1,2,4-tricarboxilic acid).
`
`Id. at 1:61-62, 3:50-51. PBTC, according to Iverson, “is an excellent mineral
`
`antiscalant.” Id. at 3:49-58. The second solution “is acid enough to convert the
`
`sodium chlorite into chlorine dioxide.” Id. at 3:54-55. Iverson also teaches that
`
`“chlorine dioxide [is] a powerful antimicrobial.” Id. at 3:44-45. Iverson
`
`demonstrates that combining these two conventional chemicals to remove biofilm
`
`and mineral deposits in irrigation systems was well known before the RE550
`
`Patent was filed.
`
`D. Overview of Miller (Ex. 1003)
`
`Like Iverson, Miller discloses an irrigation system using a chemical solution
`
`to remove mineral deposits that can cause plugs and disruptions to plant irrigation.
`
`Miller discloses a “drip irrigation” system that uses “microsprinklers, drip and
`
`subsurface drip systems” to irrigate plants. Ex. 1003 at 2:2-4. Miller notes that
`
`“[g]ypsum is a naturally-occurring mineral” that can be used in irrigation water to
`
`“quickly condition soil.” Id. at 1:8-12. A problem is that using gypsum in impure
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Meras v. CH2O
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. RE45,550
`
`irrigation water “results in precipitates that cause deposits” and “result[s] in
`
`plugging and loss of distribution efficiencies within the irrigation systems.” Id. at
`
`1:57-61.
`
`Miller taught that adding a phosphonate chemical stabilizer into the gypsum
`
`slurry would avoid the problem of plugging or clogging in the drip irrigation
`
`system. Id. at 2:18-22. Miller advised using specific water-soluble phosphonates,
`
`including PBTC (2-phosphonobutane-1,2,4-tricarboxilic acid), id. at 3:41, and
`
`HEDP (1-hydroxy, ethylidene diphosphonic acid), id. at 3:45-46. Miller taught
`
`that the phosphonates may be added when or after the slurry is prepared, or “the
`
`phosphate would be injected directly into the irrigation water which would then be
`
`mixed with the concentrated gypsum slurry to provide use concentrations.” Id. at
`
`4:36-44. Combining the gypsum and phosphonates “stabilizes the water-gypsum
`
`system, such that no plugging or clogging of the drip irrigation occurs under
`
`normal use conditions.” Id. at 6:11-14. Miller demonstrates that phosphonate
`
`antiscalants were well-known in drip irrigation systems before the RE550 Patent.
`
`E. Overview the Prosecution History of the RE550 Patent
`
`The RE550 Patent is a reissue of reexamined U.S. Patent No. 7,601,266.
`
`Petitioner submits the prosecution histories as Exhibits 1007-1009, which are
`
`summarized below.
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Meras v. CH2O
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. RE45,550
`
`1. Original Prosecution of the ’266 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,601,266 is the original patent grant upon which the RE550
`
`Patent is based. See Ex. 1001 at 1. The ’266 Patent was filed on April 20, 2006.
`
`During prosecution, the examiner rejected the claims as obvious over Iverson and
`
`other art. Ex. 1007 at 127-30. CH2O argued that these references should not be
`
`combined, id. at 114, and amended the claims to distinguish the prior art, id. at
`
`109-111. Following an interview, CH2O again amended the claims to make them
`
`“in condition for allowance,” id. at 56, and specified that the “emitters hav[e] small
`
`sized passageways,” id. at 53-55. The examiner entered another amendment
`
`following a second interview, id. at 41, and the claims were allowed, Id. at 39. (In
`
`later reissue proceedings, CH2O removed the requirement that the emitters have
`
`“small sized” passageways that it relied on to overcome the prior art. See Ex. 1009
`
`at 85-87.) The ’266 Patent issued on October 13, 2009. Ex. 1006 at 1.
`
`2.
`
`Reexamination Proceedings for ’266 Patent
`
`On June 7, 2011, CH2O filed a complaint for infringement of the ’266 Patent
`
`by a third party, AquaPulse Systems. See §II.B. On October 14, 2011, a third
`
`party requester filed a request for ex parte reexamination of the ’266 Patent. Ex.
`
`1008 at 684-714. The examiner ordered reexamination based on the proposed
`
`ground, as well as an additional ground of obviousness based on Iverson and other
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Meras v. CH2O
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. RE45,550
`
`art. Id. at 640-647. The claims were rejected on several grounds including
`
`Iverson. Id. at 588-603.
`
`In response, CH2O amended the claims to require that “the BRA and MDDA
`
`are admixed such that there is a slow release” throughout the irrigation network.
`
`Id. at 239. CH2O distinguished Iverson by arguing that: (1) Iverson lacked
`
`“discharge emitters having small sized passageways,” and (2) Iverson did not teach
`
`“a slow release” throughout the irrigation network. Id. at 243-44 (emphasis
`
`removed). CH2O asserted:
`
`Iverson is completely devoid of any teaching or suggestion [of] a slow
`release . . . In fact, Iverson discloses the exact opposite. . . . Iverson
`teaches a method for fast generation of chlorine dioxide without the
`presence of mixed oxidants in the irrigation water.
`
`Id. at 245 (underline in original).
`
`The examiner maintained rejections based on Iverson, id. at 198-225, noting
`
`that the same chemical reaction described in Iverson and the claims would have the
`
`same alleged slow release. Id. at 204-05, 216-17.
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Meras v. CH2O
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. RE45,550
`
`To overcome Iverson, CH2O submitted a declaration from a CH2O
`
`employee, Joyce Prindle, Ex. 1008 at 141-47,2 purporting to show evidence that
`
`“the ’266 patent results in slow generation of oxidizer (e.g. chlorine dioxide),
`
`while . . . Iverson [is] directed to rapid generation of chlorine dioxide,” Ex. 1009
`
`at 73. The Examiner maintained the claim rejections, Ex. 1008 at 112, and CH2O
`
`appealed, Ex. 1008 at 103.
`
`Then CH2O filed an amendment in response to the final office action, id. at
`
`92-99, adding a limitation that the “ratio of mixed oxidants to chlorine dioxide in
`
`the irrigation water discharged from the emitters is 2:1 to 2.5:1,” id. at 93. The
`
`examiner then issued a Notice of Intent to Issue a reexamination certificate on
`
`March 25, 2013, id. at 47-51, finding that Iverson and the other prior art did not
`
`teach the newly added amendment, see id. at 50. (Months later, CH2O removed
`
`this limitation in reissue proceedings on October 28, 2013. Ex. 1009 at 137-38.)
`
`The reexamination certificate issued on May 9, 2013. Ex. 1006 at 9.
`
`
`2
`The copies of the Prindle Declaration included in the reexamination file
`
`history are incomplete and missing page 2. See Ex. 1003 at 141-47. The reissue
`
`contains a complete copy of declaration. See Ex. 1009 at 72-79.
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Meras v. CH2O
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. RE45,550
`3. Reissue Proceedings on ’266 Patent Resulting In The RE550
`Patent
`
`On April 8, 2013, CH2O initiated reissue proceedings purportedly to amend
`
`Claims 2, 6, 7, and 11. Ex. 1009 at 204-207. CH2O then entered a series of
`
`amendments making extensive claim amendments and adding new claims 13-26.
`
`Id. at 162-66, 136-40. CH2O removed the limitation that “a ratio of mixed
`
`oxidants to chlorine dioxide . . . is 2:1 to 2.5:1,” id. at 137-38, the same limitation
`
`it included during the reexamination to overcome Iverson, Ex. 1008 at 50. CH2O
`
`argued that its new amendments overcame Iverson because “Iverson fails to
`
`disclose ‘introducing the BRA and MDDA into the flowing irrigation water [in the
`
`conduit],’ as recited by amended claim 1.” Ex. 1009 at 142 (emphasis removed).
`
`After an interview, the examiner rejected the claims based on Iverson and
`
`other art. Id. at 97-107. CH2O then amended the claims to additionally require “a
`
`slow release of chlorine dioxide . . . throughout the full length of the irrigation
`
`network,” id. at 86-87, and argued that Iverson did not disclose this limitation, id.
`
`at 93. Relying again on the Prindle Declaration, id. at 72-79, CH2O argued that the
`
`‘266 Patent results in a slow generation of chlorine dioxide, while Iverson was
`
`directed to a rapid generation, id. at 94. (In the same amendment, CH2O deleted
`
`the prior requirement that the emitters have “small sized” passageways, see id. at
`
`85-86, that it added during the original prosecution to overcome Iverson.)
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Meras v. CH2O
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent No. RE45,550
`
`After an interview, id. at 46, the examiner entered a Notice of Allowability
`
`on March 4, 2015, id. at 32. The examiner stated that “[t]he closest prior art is
`
`considered to be Iverson,” id. at 33, but stated that Iverson fails to teach the “slow
`
`release of chlorine dioxide” limitation, citing the Prindle Declaration, id. at 34.
`
`The reissue patent is dated June 9, 2015. Ex. 1001 at 1.
`
`F. Overview of Prior Litigation Involving Iverson
`
`In November 2013, CH2O filed a complaint asserting that Petitioner
`
`infringed Iverson. CH2O’s admissions concerning Iverson during the litigation
`
`contradict CH2O’s arguments during
`
`the reexamination and reissue and
`
`demonstrate that the RE550 Patent is unpatentable.
`
`During claim construction proceedings, CH2O admitted that Iverson did not
`
`require any specific reaction speed for generating chlorine dioxide, contradicting
`
`its separate arguments to the Patent Office that Iverson required the “fast
`
`generation of chlorine dioxide.” Ex. 1008 at 245. CH2O made the following
`
`admissions:
`
` CH2O disputed that Iverson required the disclosed reaction is “driven to
`
`completion,” arguing Iverson “could have defined ‘reacted mixture’ in the
`
`specification to require a completed reaction. Nothing of the sort happened
`
`here.” Ex. 1010 at 11.
`
`-15-
`
`