NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TEAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

INTEX RECREATION CORP., BESTWAY (USA), 

INC.,

Appellees

KATHERINE K. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF 

COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 

AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES 

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2020-1147

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-

00875.

______________________ 

Decided: October 23, 2023

______________________ 

ROBERT M. HARKINS, JR., Cherian LLP, Berkeley, CA, 

argued for appellant. Also represented by JAMES MICHAEL 

WOODS, Washington, DC; TIMOTHY E. BIANCHI, 

Case: 20-1147 Document: 101 Page: 1 Filed: 10/23/2023
2 TEAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION v. INTEX RECREATION CORP. 

Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, PA, Minneapolis, MN.

 R. TREVOR CARTER, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath 

LLP, Indianapolis, IN, argued for all appellees. Appellee 

Intex Recreation Corp. also represented by REID E. DODGE,

ANDREW M. MCCOY. 

 JOHN S. ARTZ, Dickinson Wright PLLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 

for appellee Bestway (USA), Inc. Also represented by 

STEVEN A. CALOIARO, Reno, NV.

 THOMAS W. KRAUSE, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for 

intervenor. Also represented by DANIEL KAZHDAN,

FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, DYK, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. 

Team Worldwide Corporation (“Team Worldwide”) appeals from a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark 

Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding 

that claims 1, 7, and 11−14 of U.S. Patent 7,346,950 are 

unpatentable as anticipated by U.S. Patent 6,018,960 

(“Parienti”) as well as U.S. Patent 7,039,972 (“Chaffee”). 

Intex Recreational Corp. v. Team Worldwide Corp., No. 

IPR2018-00875 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 11, 2019), J.A. 1−96 (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

This appeal pertains to an inter partes review (“IPR”) in 

which Intex Recreation Corporation (“Intex”) challenged 

claims 1, 7, and 11−14 of the ’950 patent. The ’950 patent 

is directed to an inflatable product, like an air mattress, 

with a built-in pump. See, e.g., ’950 patent, col. 8 l. 55–col. 

9 l. 3. Intex asserted multiple grounds of invalidity against 

the challenged claims, including anticipation by both 

Case: 20-1147 Document: 101 Page: 2 Filed: 10/23/2023
TEAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION v. INTEX RECREATION CORP. 3

Parienti and Chaffee. During the IPR, the Board construed 

“built in” to mean “integrated into and not detachable (or 

readily removed) from” and construed “pack” to mean “container.” Decision at 20–21. The Board then found each of 

the challenged claims anticipated by both Parienti, id. at 

22–52, and Chaffee, id. at 52–84. 

Team Worldwide appealed. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C. § 141(c).

DISCUSSION

We review the Board’s legal determinations de novo, In 

re Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and the 

Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence, In re 

Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). A finding 

is supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind 

might accept the evidence as adequate to support the finding. Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).

Team Worldwide contends that the Board erred in finding that Parienti and Chaffee each anticipated the challenged claims. In particular, Team Worldwide contends 

that the Board erred in determining that Chaffee taught 

an anticipatory embodiment in which its pack was not detachable or readily removed from the mattress wall. Decision at 63–79. We see no error in the Board’s anticipation 

determination as to Chaffee, Decision at 63–79, and conclude that it was supported by substantial evidence. Because we affirm the Board’s decision as to Chaffee, we need 

not discuss its holdings on Parienti. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Team Worldwide’s remaining arguments and do not find them persuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s final written decision. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 20-1147 Document: 101 Page: 3 Filed: 10/23/2023