One World Techs. v. Chervon (HK) Ltd., IPR2020-00886
| Decision Date | 03 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 686 B2,826,IPR2020-00886,Patent 9 |
| Parties | ONE WORLD TECHNOLOGIES, INC., D/B/A/ TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES POWER EQUIPMENT, Petitioner, v. CHERVON (HK) LIMITED, Patent Owner. Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Claims 35 U.S.C. § References Claims Shown Unpatentable Claims Not shown Unpatentable |
| Court | United States Patent and Trademark Office. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board |
For PETITIONER: Edward Sikorski James Heintz Tiffany Miller DLA PIPER LLP (US)
Before BARRY L. GROSSMAN, JAMES J. MAYBERRY, and ALYSSA A. FINAMORE Administrative Patent Judges.
JUDGMENT FINAL WRITTEN DECISION DETERMINING NO CHALLENGED CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE 35 U.S.C.§ 318(A)
ORDER Dismissing Patent Owner's Motion to Strike 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)
GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
One World Technologies, Inc., doing business as Techtronic Industries Power Equipment ("Petitioner"), filed a Petition (Paper 1, "Pet.") requesting inter partes review of claims 1-20 (the "Challenged Claims") of U.S. Patent No. 9, 826, 686 B2 (Ex. 1001, "the '686 patent"). Pet 1. Chervon (HK) Ltd. ("Patent Owner"), filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 11.
We concluded that Petitioner satisfied the burden, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), to show that there was a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, on behalf of the Director (37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)), we instituted an inter partes review of all the challenged claims, on all the asserted grounds. Paper 21 ("Dec. Inst.").
After institution, Patent Owner filed a Response. Paper 26 ("PO Resp."). Petitioner filed a Reply. Paper 40 ("Reply"). Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply. Paper 45 ("Sur-reply").
Petitioner submitted 24 exhibits (Exs. 1001-1042) (some exhibit numbers omitted, e.g., numbers 1021-1029 were not used). Petitioner relies, in part, on the Declaration testimony of E. Smith Reed (Ex. 1003).
Patent Owner submitted 31 exhibits (Exs. 2001-2035) (some exhibit numbers omitted). Patent Owner relies, in part, on the Declaration testimony of Fred P. Smith (Ex. 2027).
There are three outstanding motions before us. One pending motion is Petitioner's Motion to Update Mandatory Notice to Add Real Parties-in-Interest. Paper 13 ("RPI Mot."). Petitioner seeks to add Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd., Techtronic Industries North America, Inc., and Homelite Consumer Products, Inc. as real parties-in-interest without changing the filing date of the Petition. RPI Mot. 1. Patent Owner opposes the Motion. Paper 16 ("RPI Opp."). Petitioner filed a Reply to the Opposition (Paper 18, "RPI Reply"). We reserved judgment on the RPI Motion until the parties developed a complete record at trial. Paper 21, 33 (citing SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 at 18 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2020) (precedential)). As we explain below, we grant Petitioner's Motion to add real parties-in-interest.
The second pending motion is Patent Owner's Motion to Strike alleged improper arguments from Petitioner's Reply. Paper 44 ("Mot. Strike"). Petitioner opposes this Motion. Paper 48. As we explain below, we dismiss Patent Owner's Motion to Strike.
The third pending motion is a Motion to Seal, supported by both parties. Papers 27 (PO Mot. Seal), 29 (Pet. Mot. Seal). We grant this Motion.
A joint hearing was held August 5, 2021, for this proceeding and for three related proceedings, IPR2020-00884; 00887; and 00888. Paper 54 ("Tr.").
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We enter this Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
Petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability of a claim by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
Based on the arguments and evidence before us, we determine that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are not patentable.
Petitioner identifies itself, Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd., Techtronic Industries North America, Inc., and Homelite Consumer Products, Inc. as the real parties-in-interest. Pet. 1; RPI Mot.[1]
Patent Owner identifies itself and Chervon North America Inc., an exclusive licensee of the '686 patent, as real parties-in-interest. Paper 5, 1.
The parties identify Chervon (HK) Limited v. One World Technologies, Inc., No. l:19-cv-01293-LPS (D. Del. filed July 11, 2019), as a matter related to the '686 patent. Pet. 1; Paper 5, 1.
The following eight Board proceedings are also related matters:
Pet. 1; Paper 5, 1.
The case before us, the '886 IPR, is most closely related to the '884, '887, and '888 IPRs in the context of claim scope, asserted references, and issues to be decided. As noted above, a joint hearing was held for these four cases. See Tr. 1.
We make the following findings concerning the '686 patent.
The '686 patent, titled "Gardening Tool," relates to a gardening tool, such as an electric power lawnmower. Ex. 1001, 1:51-53 ().
The disclosed and claimed invention involves some combination of control devices. One control device, which is usually referred to as the first control device, is controlled by the user when using the gardening tool or mower. Ex. 1001, 5:58-59. This first control may be, for example, a trigger or a "dead man's switch, "[2] or other forms of switches. Id at 6:1-16. Another control device, referred to as the second control device, controls operation of the motor based on rotation of the handle. Id. at 6:38-41. The final control device, usually called the third control device, controls operation of the motor based on the length of the handle which varies with the telescoping position of the tubes making up the handle. Id. at 7:19-23.
The disclosed mower includes an adjustable handle that allows a comfortable "operation posture" and also allows folding or collapsing the handle to facilitate storage by "reducing [the] space occupied" when the mower is not being used. Ex. 1001, 2:38-42. The adjustable handle also includes safety features that ensure the motor will not operate unless the handle is properly secured in an operating position. Id. at 5:30-40. The handle includes switches or control units that will not engage unless the handle's rotational position and/or the handle's sliding position are properly secured, thus allowing the related switches, or control devices, to complete the circuit needed to run the mower's motor. See, e.g., id. at 2:60-64 (disclosing trigger B), 5:24-40, 6:38-7:18, Figs. 2, 7-10 (disclosing rotational switch SW1), 7:19-34, Figs. 5, 6 (disclosing sliding switch SW2).
Figure 1 from the '686 patent is shown below.
(Image omitted)
Figure 1 is a schematic view of an exemplary lawn mower according to a preferred embodiment of the disclosed invention. Ex. 1001, 2:3-5. Mower 100 includes main body 10 and handle 20, which is rotatably connected to main body 10. Id. at 2:38-40. As shown in Figure 1, handle 20 also includes two telescopic tubes 20a, 20b, wherein telescopic tube 20b forms a sleeve into which telescopic tube 20a is inserted. Id. at 2:65-3:2. The end of handle 20 closest to the user includes an “operation assembly, ” which has a trigger B, which allows the user "to start or stop the motor." Id. at 2:59-64. The "control system" of mower 100 includes a series of switches. Switch SW is a contact switch controlled by trigger B. Id. at 6:29-33.
The control system includes two other switches, SW1 and SW2. Switch SW1 prevents the motor from operating if the rotational position of the handle is not properly secured. Switch SW1 is a contact switch located on main body 10 near where handle 20 connects to main body 10. Ex. 1001, 6:59-62, Fig. 2. When handle 20 is rotated into a designated operational position, the handle rotates shaft 21, causing trigger member 22 to trigger SW1. Id. at 6:65-7:2. When handle 20 rotates out of the designated position, SW1, connected in series to the power supply circuit, locks out operation of trigger B and switch SW from starting the motor. Id. at 6:44-48.
SW2 operates to prevent the motor from operating if the sliding position of the handle is not properly secured. The control system of mower 100...
To continue reading
Request your trial