2014-12-01 FINAL IPR Petition

70 Pages·2014·2.29 MB·English

by  Jaime Smith

Patent No. 8,533,992
Petition for Inter Partes Review

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT AND TRIAL APPEAL BOARD

FarmedHere, LLC
Petitioner
v.
Just Greens, LLC
Patent Owner

Patent No. 8,533,992
Issue Date: Sept. 17, 2013
Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR AEROPONIC FARMING

Inter Partes Review No. _____

PETITION FOR INTER PARTIES REVIEW

UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.

Filed on behalf of Petitioner:

Brian C. Kwok (Reg. No. 58,828)
Thomas Mavrakakis (Reg. No. 39,763)
MAVRAKAKIS LAW GROUP LLP
735 Emerson Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Tel: [phone]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
  NOTICES AND STATEMENTS ....................................................................... 1

II.
  INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 3

III.
 TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF ALLEGED
INVENTION ............................................................................................................ 5

A.
 Technology Background ................................................................................ 5

1.
 Soilless Systems .......................................................................................... 5

2.
 Growth Substrates ....................................................................................... 7

B.
 General Description of the ’992 Patent .......................................................... 8

C.
 Level of Skill in the Art ................................................................................ 10

D.
 Prosecution of the ’992 Patent ...................................................................... 12

IV.
 CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................. 14

A.
 “Cloth Material” ........................................................................................... 14

B.
 “Attaching at Least Some of the Edges/Releasably Attaching at Least Some
of the Edges” .................................................................................................. 16

1.
 “edges” ...................................................................................................... 16

2.
 “attaching” ................................................................................................. 17

3.
 “releasably attaching” ................................................................................ 17

V.
  IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ........................................................... 17

VI.
 OVERVIEW OF REFERENCES ..................................................................... 18

A.
 Overview of the Biocontrols Website .......................................................... 18

B.
 Overview of the Genisis Catalog .................................................................. 23

C.
 Overview of European Patent No. 04403381 (“Schroder”) and Erdelose
Kulturverfahren im Gartenbau (“the German Text”) ..................................... 26

D.
 Overview of The Best of the Growing Edge (“The Growing Edge”) .......... 28

E.
 Overview of U.S. Patent No. 5,515,648 (“Sparkes”) ................................... 29

VII.
  SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR REJECTION ................................................... 31

A.
 Ground 1: Anticipation By The Biocontrols Website .................................. 31

1.
 The Biocontrols Website Anticipates Claim 1, 30 and 47. ....................... 31

2.
 The Biocontrols Website Anticipates Claims 13 and 32. .......................... 34

3.
 The Biocontrols Website Anticipates Claims 16 and 35. .......................... 36

4.
 The Biocontrols Website Anticipates Claims 18-20, 39-41 and 49. ......... 36

5.
 The Biocontrols Website Anticipates Claims 21-23, 42-45 and 50. ......... 36

6.
 The Biocontrols Website Anticipates Claims 23 and 45. .......................... 37

B.
 Ground 2: Obviousness Based on the Biocontrols Website in View of
Common Sense and Common Knowledge of Ordinary Artisans .................. 37

C.
 Ground 3: Obviousness in View of the Biocontrols Website and the Genisis
Catalog (“the Genesis Descriptions”) ............................................................ 39

ii
1.
 The Genesis Descriptions at a Minimum Render Obvious Claims 1, 13,
16-20, 25-26, 30, 32-36, 39-41, 47 & 49. ................................................. 39

2.
 The Genesis Descriptions at a Minimum Render Obvious Claims 21-23,
42-45 and 50. ............................................................................................ 40

3.
 The Genesis Descriptions Render Obvious Claims 25 and 26. ................. 41

D.
 Ground 4: Obviousness In View of the Genesis Descriptions And
Descriptions Of Dr. Schroder’s Work. ........................................................... 42

E.
 Ground 5: Obviousness in View of the Growing Edge Combined With the
German Text. .................................................................................................. 46

1.
 The Growing Edge Renders Obvious Claims 1, 30 and 47. ...................... 47

2.
 The Growing Edge Renders Obvious Claims 13 and 32. .......................... 51

3.
 The Growing Edge Renders Obvious Claims 14-16 and 33-35. ............... 52

4.
 The Growing Edge Renders Obvious Claims 18-20, 39-41 and 49. ......... 52

5.
 The Growing Edge Renders Obvious Claims 23 and 45. .......................... 52

6.
 The Growing Edge Renders Obvious Claims 25 and 26. .......................... 53

F.
 Ground 6: Anticipation by Sparkes .............................................................. 53

1.
 Sparkes Anticipates Claims 1, 30 and 47. ................................................. 53

2.
 Sparkes Anticipates Claims 13 and 32. ..................................................... 57

3.
 Sparkes Anticipates Claims 16, 17, 35 and 36. ......................................... 58

4.
 Sparkes Anticipates Claims 23 and 45. ..................................................... 58

G.
 Ground 7: Obviousness in View of Sparkes and Common Sense ............... 59

VIII.
 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 59

iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Abbvie Inc. v. Mathilda & Terrence Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology Trust,
764 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 47
Amkor Technology, Inc. v. Tessera, Inc.,
Case IPR2013-00242 (PTAB, Jan. 31, 2014) (De Franco, APJ) .......................... 1
Bradford Co. v. Afco Mfg.,
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15292(S.D. Ohio Feb. 28, 2008) .................................. 25
Clio USA, Inc. v. The Proctor & Gamble Co.,
Case IPR2013-00438 (PTAB, Jan. 9, 2014) (Kamholz, APJ) .............................. 3
Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co.,
464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 45
Ford Motor Co. v. Paice LLC & The Abell Foundation, Inc.,
Case IPR 2014-00570 (PTAB Sept. 30, 2014) (DeFranco, APJ) ......................... 2
Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc.,
725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .......................................................................... 48
Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
748 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 45
In re Boe,
355 F.2d 961 (CCPA 1966) ................................................................................ 49
In re Hall,
781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ............................................................................ 26
In re Kerkhoven,
626 F.2d 846 (Fed. Cir. 1980) ............................................................................ 44
In re Petering,
301 F.2d 676 (CCPA 1962) ................................................................................ 47
In re Rhinehart,
531 F.2d 1048 (CCPA 1976) .............................................................................. 48
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 39, 46
Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 45
Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc.,
79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 25
Orion IP, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am.,
605 F.3d 967(Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................. 25
iv
Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 46
Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 16
Randall Mfg. v. Rea,
733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 40
Sandt Tech., Ltd. v. Resco Metal & Plastics Corp.,
264 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 46
Techs, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 39
Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Solutions, Inc.,
698 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 21
Wm Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC,
683 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 61
Statutes

35 U.S.C. § 102 ..................................................................................... 20, 24, 26, 28
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .................................................................................................. 27
35 U.S.C. § 103 ....................................................................................................... 12
35 U.S.C. § 112 ....................................................................................................... 12
35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1) ............................................................................................... 2
35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ............................................................................................... 1
Regulations

37 C.F.R. § 42.100 .................................................................................................... 1
37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................. 14
37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................................................................................... 3
37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .............................................................................................. 1
37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(b)(4) .................................................................................... 3

v
Exhibit List for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,533,992
Exhibit Description Exhibit #
U.S. Patent No. 8,533,992 to Harwood (“the ’992 patent”) 1001
The Best of the Growing Edge (1994) (“Growing Edge”) 1002
U.S. Patent No. 4,332,105 to Nir (“Nir”) 1003
U.S. Patent No. 7,426,802 to Umbaugh 1004
U.S. Patent No. 3,300,895 to Pavlica 1005
U.S. Patent No. 2,175,113 to Fischer 1006
European Patent No. 0440033 to Schroder (“Schroder”) 1007
U.S. Patent No. 5,515,648 to Sparkes (“Sparkes”) 1008
U.K. Patent No. 2,162,033 to Haberda et al. 1009
U.S. Patent No. 6,397,520 to Kosinski 1010
U.S. Patent App. No. 11/224,491 File History excerpt 1011
(5/9/2008 Non-Final Rejection)
U.S. Patent No. 8,533,992 File History 1012
Definition of “cloth” from Merriam-Webster Dictionary 1013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroponics 1014
Affidavit of Christopher Butler on behalf of the Internet 1015
Archive regarding www.biocontrols.com
Annotated Version of Biocontrols Website 1016
vi
Genisis Technology Product Catalog 1017
Declaration of Richard Stoner 1018
Declaration of Dr. Merle H. Jensen 1019
Hydroponics Worldwide – A Technical Overview 1020
Basic Principles of Hydroponics 1021
Re-examing Aeroponics for Spaceflight Plant Growth 1022
Letter from Dr. Mostefa Laabasi including Genisis Marketing 1023
Literature
Greenhouse Grower (November 1983) 1024

World Farming Agrimanagement (September/October 1984) 1025
Domain Registration for www.aeroponics.com 1026
Nylon Fibers (April 2004) 1027
Cellulose Background 1028
Cellulose Cloths Available on Amazon.com 1029
German Book Erdelose Kulterverfahren im Gartenbau 1030
Certified English Translation of Erdelose Kulterverfahren im 1031
Gartenbau
How To Hydropnics 1032
Exemplary Fleece from JoAnn Fabric On-Line Store 1033
Description of Polyester Manufacturing 1034
Fabric History from Fabric University 1035
vii
Wikipedia Article on Fiberglass 1036
Definition of “Edge” From Merriam-Webster Dictionary 1037
Definition of “Attach” From Merriam-Webster Dictionary 1038
Definition of “Release” From Merriam-Webster 1039
Hydroponic Production of Vegetables and Ornamentals 1040
“About Us” Page from Great Veggies LLC 1041
Demand For Arbitration Before JAMS 1042
1:14-cv-00370 NDIL January 17, 2014 Complaint 1043
1:14-cv-00370 NDIL June 16, 2014 Dismissal 1044
Fabric Structures from Fabric Architecture 1045
Mesh and Netting Fabric 1046
U.S. Patent Publication 2009/0008260 to Chang 1047
Textile Dictionary from Fabric Link 1048
Nylon Net Fabric from JoAnn Fabric On-Line Store 1049
Polartec Fabrics – Polartec Classic 1050
Fairchild’s Dictionary of Textiles (7th ed.) 1051
Textiles (11th ed.) 1052
J.J. Pizzuto’s Fabric Science Swatch Kit (8th ed.) 1053
Index No. 650201/2014 NYSCEF October 10, 2014 Stipulation 1054
of Discontinuance
viii
October 13-14, 2014 FarmedHere and AeroFarms Email 1055
Correspondence
Distribution Agreement between Aero Farm Systems and 1056
Cityponic, LLC
Information Disclosure Statement for Serial No. 10/621,618 by 1057
Applicant Umbaugh, Jr.
CV of Dr. Merle H. Jensen 1058

ix
Petitioner FarmedHere, LLC (“Petitioner”) respectfully petitions for inter
partes review of claims 1, 13-23, 30, 32-36, 39-45, 47, 49, 50 of U.S. Patent No.
8,533,992 (“the ’992 patent”). 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 & 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
I. NOTICES AND STATEMENTS
Petitioner is the real party-in-interest. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2),
Petitioner identifies the following related matters. On December 24, 2013, the
Patent Owner filed a demand for arbitration against Petitioner and others, alleging
infringement of the ’992 patent and State law claims. (Ex. 1042.) A demand for
arbitration does not trigger 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). See Amkor Technology, Inc. v.
Tessera, Inc., Case IPR2013-00242 (PTAB, Jan. 31, 2014) (De Franco, APJ). In
Amkor, the Board held that a pre-existing arbitration could not bar a Board review,
emphasizing that Congress intended Board reviews to be a “meaningful and less
expensive alternative to litigation.” Id. Dismissing the Patent Owner’s position,
the Board stated: “[I]n terms of arbitration, a patent owner could invoke an
arbitration clause in a license agreement and make a general allegation of
infringement to trigger a [statutory] deadline [if Patent Owner’s position were
adopted].” Id. That impermissible scenario would not be possible if arbitrations
and Board reviews do not co-exist. Thus, the Board has already acknowledged that
arbitrations and Board reviews are complementary (just as Federal actions and
Board reviews are complementary).
1