Filed: April 29, 2024
`
`On behalf of Trove Brands, LLC
`By: Ali S. Razai (Reg. No. 60,771)
`Joseph F. Jennings (Reg. No. 40,664)
`Cheryl T. Burgess (Reg. No. 55,030)
`Nathan D. Reeves (Reg. No. 77,806)
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Ph: 949-760-0404
`Email: BoxTrove1@knobbe.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`TROVE BRANDS, LLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`CAMELBAK PRODUCTS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2024-00858
`Patent 8,905,252
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,905,252
`
`
`
`On behalf of Trove Brands, LLC
`By: Ali S. Razai (Reg. No. 60,771)
`Joseph F. Jennings (Reg. No. 40,664)
`Cheryl T. Burgess (Reg. No. 55,030)
`Nathan D. Reeves (Reg. No. 77,806)
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Ph: 949-760-0404
`Email: BoxTrove1@knobbe.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`TROVE BRANDS, LLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`CAMELBAK PRODUCTS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2024-00858
`Patent 8,905,252
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,905,252
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES ...................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) .............................. 1
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)) ........................................ 1
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)) ....................... 1
`
`D.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)) ................................. 2
`
`E.
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §42.103) ............................................ 2
`
`F.
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104) .................................... 2
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 3
`
`III. BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 5
`
`IV. THE ’252 PATENT .................................................................................. 9
`
`A. Overview ........................................................................................ 9
`
`B.
`
`The Challenged Claims ................................................................ 12
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History ...................................................................... 15
`
`V. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ........................................... 15
`
`A.
`
`IPR Grounds ................................................................................. 15
`
`B.
`
`The ’252 Patent Is Subject to the Prior Art Provisions of the
`AIA. .............................................................................................. 16
`
`C.
`
`The Asserted References Are Prior Art ....................................... 17
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ........................................................... 17
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................... 18
`
`A.
`
`“Closure Retention Mechanism” .................................................. 18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Construction of a means-plus-function limitation ............. 19
`
`Function of “closure retention mechanism” ...................... 20
`
`Structure of “closure retention mechanism” ...................... 21
`
`B.
`
`Remaining Terms ......................................................................... 23
`
`VIII. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 5-7 AND 16-19 ARE ANTICIPATED BY
`AND/OR WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS OVER
`SAMARTGIS ......................................................................................... 23
`
`A. Overview of Samartgis ................................................................. 23
`
`B.
`
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................... 26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Preamble ............................................................................. 26
`
`5[a]: Liquid Container ........................................................ 27
`
`5[b]: Cap Assembly ........................................................... 27
`
`5[b][i]: Base ....................................................................... 28
`
`5[b][ii]: Drink Spout .......................................................... 29
`
`5[b][iii]: Closure ................................................................ 30
`
`5[b][iv]: Handle .................................................................. 32
`
`5[b][iv][a]: Closure Retention Mechanism ........................ 33
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`C.
`
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................... 36
`
`D.
`
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................... 38
`
`E.
`
`Claim 16 ....................................................................................... 40
`
`F.
`
`Claim 17 ....................................................................................... 42
`
`G.
`
`Claim 18 ....................................................................................... 43
`
`H.
`
`Claim 19 ....................................................................................... 44
`
`IX. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 16-18 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`OVER SAMARTGIS IN COMBINATION WITH GORSKEY
`AND/OR JOHNSON .............................................................................. 45
`
`A. Overview of Gorskey and Johnson .............................................. 46
`
`B.
`
`Combining Samartgis with Gorskey and/or Johnson ................... 50
`
`C.
`
`Claim 16 Would Have Been Obvious .......................................... 51
`
`D.
`
`Claim 17 Would Have Been Obvious .......................................... 53
`
`E.
`
`Claim 18 Would Have Been Obvious .......................................... 55
`
`X. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 5-7, 16, AND 19 ARE ANTICIPATED
`BY AND/OR WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS OVER
`LEONCAVALLO................................................................................... 55
`
`A. Overview of Leoncavallo ............................................................. 55
`
`B.
`
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................... 58
`
`1.
`
`Preamble ............................................................................. 58
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`5[a]: Liquid Container ........................................................ 59
`
`5[b]: Cap Assembly ........................................................... 59
`
`5[b][i]: Base ....................................................................... 61
`
`5[b][ii]: Drink Spout .......................................................... 62
`
`5[b][iii]: Closure ................................................................ 64
`
`5[b][iv]: Handle .................................................................. 66
`
`5[b][iv][a]: Closure Retention Mechanism ........................ 67
`
`C.
`
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................... 70
`
`D.
`
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................... 73
`
`E.
`
`Claim 16 ....................................................................................... 75
`
`F.
`
`Claim 19 ....................................................................................... 76
`
`XI. GROUND 4: CLAIMS 17 AND 18 WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS OVER LEONCAVALLO IN VIEW OF GORSKEY
`AND/OR JOHNSON. ............................................................................. 77
`
`XII. GROUND 5: CLAIMS 5-7 AND 16, 19 WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS OVER MILLER IN VIEW LEONCAVALLO. .................. 79
`
`A. Overview of Miller ....................................................................... 79
`
`B.
`
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................... 81
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Preamble ............................................................................. 82
`
`5[a]: Liquid Container ........................................................ 82
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`5[b]: Cap Assembly ........................................................... 83
`
`5[b][i]: Base ....................................................................... 84
`
`5[b][ii]: Drink Spout .......................................................... 85
`
`5[b][iii]: Closure ................................................................ 86
`
`5[b][iv]: Handle .................................................................. 88
`
`5[b][iv][a]: Closure Retention Mechanism ........................ 88
`
`C.
`
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................... 93
`
`D.
`
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................... 94
`
`E.
`
`Claim 16 ....................................................................................... 95
`
`F.
`
`Claim 19 ....................................................................................... 95
`
`G. Obviousness of Combining Miler and Leoncavallo .................... 95
`
`XIII. GROUND 6: CLAIMS 17-18 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`OVER MILLER IN VIEW OF LEONCAVALLO AND IN
`FURTHER VIEW OF GORSKEY AND/OR JOHNSON. .................... 97
`
`XIV. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS .................................................... 98
`
`XV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §314(A) IS NOT
`APPROPRIATE ..................................................................................... 98
`
`A.
`
`Factor 1: Potential Stay ................................................................ 99
`
`B.
`
`Factor 2: Proximity of Trial to FWD ........................................... 99
`
`C.
`
`Factor 3: Investment in Parallel Proceeding ................................ 99
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`D.
`
`Factor 4: Overlapping Issues ...................................................... 100
`
`E.
`
`Factor 5: The Parties................................................................... 101
`
`F.
`
`Factor 6: Other Circumstances ................................................... 101
`
`XVI. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER §325(D) IS NOT
`APPROPRIATE ................................................................................... 101
`
`A.
`
`Factors (a), (b), and (d) ............................................................... 102
`
`B.
`
`Factors (c), (e), and (f) ............................................................... 103
`
`XVII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 104
`
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page No(s).
`
`10X Genomics, Inc. v. Bio-Rad Labs., Inc.,
`IPR2020-00087, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2020) .................................... 23
`
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte
`GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020) ................................... 102
`
`Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................... 19
`
`Apple v. Fintiv,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) .......................... 98, 101
`
`In re Baxter Travenol Labs,
`952 F.2d 388 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ......................................................... 35, 69, 70
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017) .......................... 101, 102
`
`Brunswick Corp. v. Volvo Penta of the Ams., LLC,
`IPR2020-01512, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2021) ................................ 103
`
`Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd.,
`25 F.4th 976 (Fed. Cir. 2022) .................................................................... 100
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. NetSocket, Inc.,
`IPR2023-00607, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 26, 2023)................................ 102
`
`CRFD Rsch., Inc. v. Matal,
`876 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................. 36, 70
`
`Fusion Orthopedics, LLC v. Extremity Med., LLC,
`IPR2023-00894, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 2023) ................................ 103
`
`- vii -
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No(s).
`
`Google LLC v. Jawbone Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2022-00630, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 13, 2022)................................ 100
`
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ..................................................................... 17
`
`Huawei Techs. Co. v. WSOU Invs., LLC,
`IPR2021-00226, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. June 10, 2021) ................................ 100
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................. passim
`
`Leapfrog Enters. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
`485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................... 98
`
`Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`800 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................... 19
`
`NanoCellect Biomedical, Inc. v. Cytonome/ST, LLC,
`IPR2020-00551, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2020) ................................ 101
`
`Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co.,
`864 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ..................................................................... 98
`
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd. Matal,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................... 23
`
`Ex Parte Raichelgauz,
`No. 2022-003827, 2023 WL 3318861 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2023)................ 16
`
`Realtime Data v. Iancu,
`912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................. 35, 70
`
`Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc. v. Snik LLC,
`IPR2020-01428, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2021) ............................ 99, 100
`
`- viii -
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No(s).
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Cellect, LLC,
`IPR2020-00471, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2020) ................................ 103
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Dynamics, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00502, Paper 34 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2020) ................................ 101
`
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp.-Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2020) ................................ 100
`
`Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc.,
`987 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................. 19, 20
`
`Toro Co. v. Deere & Co.,
`355 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................... 19
`
`Uber Tech., Inc. v. X One, Inc.,
`957 F. 3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................ 45, 46
`
`VMware, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2020-00470, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2020) ................................ 101
`
`Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................... 19
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................... 18
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................... 15, 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................... 15, 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ......................................................................... 18, 19, 34, 35, 69
`
`- ix -
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No(s).
`
`Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), §3(n)(1) ......................................... 16
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .............................................................................................. 1, 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .............................................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .............................................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R.§ 314 .................................................................................................. 98
`
`37 C.F.R. § 325 ....................................................................................... 101, 103
`
`
`
`- x -
`
`
`
`Trove v. CamelBak
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 8,905,252
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,905,252 (“the ’252 patent”)
`
`1002
`
`Excerpt of the File History of the ’252 Patent
`
`1003
`
`Declaration of Glenn E. Vallee, Ph.D.
`
`1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,272,822 (“Samartgis”)
`
`1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,753,240 (“Leoncavallo”)
`
`1006
`
`U.S. Design Patent No. D586,184 (“Miller”)
`
`1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,550,269 (“Lane”)
`
`1008
`
`Excerpts of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61-779,084
`
`1009
`
`Excerpts of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61-859,662
`
`1010
`
`CamelBak Infringement Contentions for the ’252 Patent dated
`December 21, 2023
`
`1011
`
`EP Publication 2177447A1 (“Gorskey”)
`
`1012
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0006578 A1 (“Johnson”)
`
`1013
`
`Order Setting Case Schedule in Trove Brands, LLC v. CamelBak
`Products, LLC, et al., No. 5:23-cv-04267-PCP (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14,
`2024)
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 1
`
`
`
`Trove v. CamelBak
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 8,905,252
`
`Petitioner Trove Brands, LLC (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of
`
`claims 5-7, and 16-19 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,905,252 (“the
`
`’252 patent”), which lists CamelBak Products, LLC (“PO” or “Patent Owner”) as
`
`assignee.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1))
`
`Trove Brands, LLC is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2))
`
`Petitioner has filed a suit against PO seeking a declaratory judgment of
`
`noninfringement of the ’252 patent by Petitioner’s FreeSip® product. Trove
`
`Brands, LLC v. CamelBak Products, LLC et al., No. 5:23-cv-04267 (N.D. Cal.).
`
`Petitioner is not aware of any other judicial or administrative matter that
`
`would affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding.
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3))
`
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel, all of whom are
`
`included in Customer No. 20,995 identified in Petitioner’s Power of Attorney.
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Trove v. CamelBak
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 8,905,252
`
`Lead Counsel
`Ali S. Razai (Reg. No. 60,771)
`
`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
`Cheryl Burgess (Reg. No. 60,771)
`Joseph F. Jennings (Reg. No. 40,664)
`Nathan Reeves (Reg. No. 77,806)
`
`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
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4))
`
`Please address all correspondence to lead counsel and back-up counsel at
`
`the addresses shown above. Petitioner also consents to electronic service by email
`
`to BoxTrove1@knobbe.com.
`
`E.
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §42.103)
`
`The fee for this petition has been paid. Any additional fees may be charged
`
`to Deposit Account 11-1410.
`
`F. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’252 patent is available for IPR and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR. This petition is being
`
`filed within one year of service of Patent Owner’s counterclaim (filed November
`
`8, 2023) alleging infringement of the ‘252 patent.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Trove v. CamelBak
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 8,905,252
`
`
`
`II. INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’252 patent discloses and claims a drink container having a removable
`
`cap assembly that generally includes four elements:
`
`(1) a base for coupling the cap assembly to the container;
`
`(2) a drink spout for dispensing liquid;
`
`(3) a removable closure to cover the spout when not in use; and
`
`(4) a handle with a closure retention mechanism that stows the closure when
`
`it is removed from the spout.
`
`An embodiment of the ‘252 patent is depicted below.
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Trove v. CamelBak
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 8,905,252
`
`closure
`
`
`base
`
`
`drink
`spout
`
`
`handle
`
`container
`
`(Ex. 1001, Figs. 4-5).1 The handle includes a pair of spaced-apart tabs projecting
`
`from the inner perimeter of the handle (not shown above) that retain the closure
`
`when it is removed from the spout.
`
`
`
`
`1 Figures herein have been colored and annotated for clarity.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Trove v. CamelBak
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 8,905,252
`
`As demonstrated herein, drink containers with cap assemblies as claimed in
`
`the ’252 patent were known in the art. Because the claimed devices were not
`
`patentable at the time of the patent’s earliest possible priority date (March 2013),
`
`the Board should institute inter partes review and cancel the claims.
`
`III. BACKGROUND
`
`Drink containers with removable caps have, of course, long been known.
`
`And drink cap assemblies with the features claimed in the ’252 patent (e.g., base,
`
`drink spout, closure, and handle with a closure retention mechanism) have also
`
`been known since before the ’252 patent’s priority date.
`
`For example, in 2010, Leoncavallo (Ex. 1005) disclosed a drink container
`
`with a removable cap assembly including a base, a drink spout, a closure to cover
`
`the spout, and a handle:
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Trove v. CamelBak
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 8,905,252
`
`handle
`
`closure
`
`spout
`
`base
`
`closure retention
`mechanism
`
`container
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1005, Fig. 3).
`
`
`
`The handle in Leoncavallo (loop member 54) included a closure retention
`
`mechanism, namely detents 90. As the user opens the drink spout by rotating the
`
`flip cap 68 around loop 54 connector members 80 engage the detents 90 and
`
`maintain the flip cap in the open position.
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Trove v. CamelBak
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 8,905,252
`
`Samartgis (Ex. 1004), filed in 2012, disclosed another example of a drink
`
`container removable cap assembly having a base, a drink spout, a closure, and a
`
`handle:
`
`closure
`
`spout
`
`base
`
`handle
`
`closure retention
`mechanism
`
`(Ex. 1004, Fig. 3). The Samartgis handle also included a retention mechanism to
`
`stow the closure when it was detached from the drink spout. Specifically, the
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Trove v. CamelBak
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 8,905,252
`
`handle included lug members 15 and 16, which engaged the closure and stowed it
`
`when the closure was removed from the spout.
`
`And finally, Miller (Ex. 1006), filed in 2008, disclosed a beverage container
`
`with a cap assembly having a base, a closure covering a drink spout, and a handle.
`
`closure
`
`closure retention
`mechanism
`
`base
`
`handle
`
`container
`
`(Ex. 1006, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶212-30). The Samartgis handle also included a
`
`retention mechanism to stow the closure when it was detached from the drink
`
`spout. Specifically, the handle included an indent or catch to receive a protruding
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Trove v. CamelBak
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 8,905,252
`
`tab on the closure to retain the closure in a stowed position when the beverage
`
`container was opened.
`
`A. Overview
`
`IV. THE ’252 PATENT
`
`The ’252 patent discloses and claims drink containers that include a liquid
`
`container and a cap assembly removably coupled to the liquid container. (Ex.
`
`1001, Abstract, 4:30-35). Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the ’252 patent’s liquid
`
`container and cap assembly. The cap assembly includes a base, drink spout
`
`extending from the base, closure for closing the drink spout, and handle.
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Trove v. CamelBak
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 8,905,252
`
`drink container
`
`handle
`
`liquid
`container
`
`
`closure
`
`
`cap assembly
`
`drink
`spout
`
`
`closure
`
`base
`
`
`base
`
`
`handle
`
`liquid
`container
`
`
`
`
`(Id., Figs. 4, 5).
`
`As shown below in Figures 7 (spout closed) and 12 (spout open), the handle
`
`includes a closure retention mechanism for retaining the closure when it is
`
`removed from the drink spout.
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Trove v. CamelBak
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 8,905,252
`
`closure
`
`
`cap
`assembly
`cap
`
`base
`
`
`cap
`assembly
`
`drink
`spout
`
`base
`
`closure
`retention
`mechanism
`
`handle
`
`
`closure
`retention
`mechanism
`
`handle
`
`closure
`
`
`
`closure
`retention
`mechanism
`
`(Id., Figs. 7, 12). The ’252 patent closure retention mechanism consists of spaced
`
`apart tabs 56 that engage and retain the closure in the stowed position. (Id., 8:57-
`
`60, 13:14-56).
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Trove v. CamelBak
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 8,905,252
`
`B.
`
`The Challenged Claims
`
`Independent claim 5 is set forth below (with bracketed labels added for
`
`reference and the main elements of the drink container bolded).
`
`Preamble
`
`A drink container, comprising:
`
`Claim 5
`
`5[a]
`
`5[b]
`
`5[b][i]
`
`5[b][ii]
`
`5[b][iii]
`
`a liquid container having a neck with an opening and having
`an internal compartment sized to hold a volume of potable
`drink liquid; and
`
`a cap assembly removably coupled to the liquid container, the
`cap assembly comprising:
`
`a base removably coupled to the neck of the liquid
`container;
`
`a drink spout extending from the base and defining a
`passage through which drink liquid from the internal
`compartment of the liquid container may be selectively
`dispensed;
`
`a closure configured to be removably coupled relative to
`the drink spout in a closed position to selectively
`restrict dispensing of drink liquid through the passage
`and to selectively permit dispensing of drink liquid
`through the passage when removed from the drink
`spout;
`
`5[b][iv]
`
`a handle extending from the base,
`
`5[b][iv][a]
`
`includes a closure retention
`the handle
`wherein
`mechanism configured to selectively retain the
`closure in a stowed position relative to the handle
`when the closure is selectively removed from the
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Trove v. CamelBak
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 8,905,252
`
`Claim 5
`
`drink spout and received by the closure retention
`mechanism.
`
`Whereas claim 5 is directed to a drink container, i.e., a liquid container and
`
`a cap assembly, independent claim 19 is directed to a cap assembly for use with a
`
`liquid container. The cap assembly includes the same elements as the cap
`
`assembly in claim 5. Independent claim 19 is set forth below (with bracketed
`
`labels added for reference and the primary elements of the cap assembly bolded).
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Trove v. CamelBak
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 8,905,252
`
`Claim 19
`
`Preamble A cap assembly for use with a liquid container having a neck with
`an opening and having an internal compartment sized to hold a
`volume of potable drink liquid, the cap assembly comprising:
`
`19[a]
`
`19[b]
`
`19[c]
`
`a base configured to be removably coupled to the neck of the
`liquid container;
`
`a drink spout extending from the base and defining a passage
`through which drink liquid from the internal compartment
`of the liquid container may be selectively dispensed when
`the cap assembly is operatively coupled to the liquid
`container;
`
`a closure configured to be removably coupled relative to the
`drink spout in a closed position to selectively restrict
`dispensing of liquid through the passage and to selectively
`permit dispensing of liquid through the passage when
`removed from the drink spout;
`
`19[d]
`
`a handle extending from the base,
`
`19[d][i]
`
`includes a closure retention
`the handle
`wherein
`mechanism configured to selectively retain the closure
`in a stowed position relative to the handle when the
`closure is selectively removed from the drink spout and
`received by the closure retention mechanism.
`
`
`
`The challenged dependent claims add limitations directed to: the handle and
`
`closure retention mechanism defining a closed perimeter (claim 6); the closure
`
`positioned within the handle’s closed perimeter when stowed (claim 7); and how
`
`the closure engages the drink spout (claims 16-18).
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Trove v. CamelBak
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 8,905,252
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`Despite the wealth of prior art drink containers available in the field and the
`
`simplicity of the claims, the Examiner allowed the ’252 patent claims without a
`
`single rejection. The Examiner stated that the prior art reviewed did not disclose
`
`“a handle extending from the base, wherein the handle includes a closure retention
`
`mechanism configured to selectively retain the closure in a stowed position
`
`relative to the handle … .” Ex. 1002 (Notice of Allowability, p.2). As
`
`demonstrated herein, the Examiner’s premise for allowing the claims was
`
`mistaken.
`
`V. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`A.
`
`IPR Grounds
`
`IPR is requested for the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`References
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`5-7, and 16-19
`
`102, 103
`
`Samartgis
`
`16-18
`
`103
`
`Samartgis in view of Gorskey
`and/or Johnson
`
`5-7, 16, and 19
`
`102, 103
`
`Leoncavallo
`
`17 and 18
`
`103
`
`Leoncavallo in view of
`Gorskey and/or Johnson
`
`5-7, 16, and 19
`
`103
`
`Miller in view of Leoncavallo
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Trove v. CamelBak
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 8,905,252
`
`6
`
`17-18
`
`103
`
`Miller in view of Leoncavallo
`and in further view of
`Gorskey and/or Johnson
`
`
`B.
`
`The ’252 Patent Is Subject to the Prior Art Provisions of the AIA.
`
`The ’252 patent claims priority to two provisional applications:
`
`• Application No. 61/779,084 filed March 13, 2013 (Ex. 1008), and
`
`• Application No. 61/859,662 filed July 29, 2013 (Ex. 1009).
`
`Therefore, the earliest possible effective filing date for the challenged claims is
`
`March 13, 2013.
`
`A patent that contains a claim with an effective filing date on or after March
`
`16, 2013 is treated under the provisions of the AIA. See Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`
`Stat. 284 (2011), §3(n)(1); Ex Parte Raichelgauz, No. 2022-003827, 2023 WL
`
`3318861, at *1 n.2 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2023). Several claims of the ’252 patent
`
`are not supported by the first provisional. (Ex. 1010).
`
`Support for claim 16’s external coupling structure on the closure plug
`
`configured to operatively mate with an internal coupling structure on the drink
`
`spout was added in the second provisional. Compare (Ex. 1008) with (Ex. 1009,
`
`Specification at 14, 26). Support for claim 17’s drink spout upper lip that does
`
`not engage the closure and claim 18’s cap assembly having a void between the
`
`drink spout upper lip and the closure was also added in the second provisional.
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`Trove v. CamelBak
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 8,905,252
`
`Compare (Ex. 1008) with (Ex. 1009, Specification at 14, 26). Further, Patent
`
`Owner has admitted in the district court action that claims 16-18 are not entitled
`
`to a pre-AIA priority date. (Ex. 1010, 2).
`
`In sum, because one or more claims of the ’252 patent are not entitled to a
`
`pre-AIA priority date, a fact admitted by Patent Owner, the patent is subject to the
`
`prior art provisions of the AIA.
`
`C. The Asserted References Are Prior Art
`
`This Petition relies on the following prior art references:
`
`Exhibit
`
`Reference
`
`Date
`
`1004
`1005
`1006
`
`1007
`1011
`
`Samartgis
`Leoncavallo
`Miller
`
`Lane
`Gorskey
`
`1012
`
`Johnson
`
`Filed: August 20, 2012
`Issued: July 13, 2010
`Issued: February 10,
`2009
`Filed: June 8, 2011
`Published: April 21,
`2010
`Published January 12,
`2006
`
`AIA Art
`Type
`§102(a)(2)
`§102(a)(1)
`§102(a)(1)
`
`§102(a)(2)
`§102(a)(1)
`
`§102(a)(1)
`
`
`
`This Petition is supported by the expert declaration of Glenn E. Vallee, Ph.D..
`
`(Ex. 1003).
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`Based on the relevant factors, In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1995), a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`Trove v. CamelBak
`IPR Petition – U.S. Patent 8,905,252
`
`have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent
`
`coursework, and a year or more of experience in designing, prototyping, and/or
`
`manufacturing fluid containers or similar products. (Ex. 1003 ¶¶25-30). More
`
`work experience may substitute for a lower level of education, and vice versa.
`
`(Id.).
`
`This Petition does not turn on this specific definition of the level of ordinary
`
`skill. The claims are anticipated and/or would been obvious from the perspective
`
`of a POSITA under any reasonable definition. (Id. ¶¶29).
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`“Closure Retention Mechanism”
`
`Claims 5 and 19 recite “a closure retention mechanism configured to
`
`selectively retain the closure in a stowed position relative to the handle when the
`
`closure is selectively removed from the drink spout and received by the closure
`
`retention mechanism.” This term is governed by 35 U.S.C. §112(f) because it
`
`recites a nonce “mechanism” for performing a claimed function without reciting
`
`struc
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
