Opinion ID: 4535276
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: IPR Proceeding

Text: Puzhen Life USA, LLC, (“Puzhen”) filed a petition for inter partes review of claims 1, 3, and 17 of the ’130 patent. Case: 19-1659 Document: 36 Page: 5 Filed: 05/19/2020 ESIP SERIES 2, LLC v. PUZHEN LIFE USA, LLC 5 Puzhen challenged the claims as obvious (i) in view of Sevy 1 and Cronenberg 2; and (ii) in view of Sevy and Giroux 3. Sevy relates to “novel systems and methods for integrating air supplies, reservoirs and atomizers into an integrated system.” Sevy at 1:6–8. Sevy relies on “direction change and momentum of impact to further comminute [] droplets into a more finely atomized mist.” Id. at 2:13–19. Sevy teaches that larger droplets are separated from the mist because they “cannot move with the airflow, typically because . . . they will not be able to quickly turn to follow the flow of air.” Id. at 8:64–9:4. Cronenberg relates to “[a] separator adapted for use as part of a fluid dispenser system for supplying inhalable fluids.” Cronenberg at Abstract. Cronenberg teaches that the “separator is adapted to be positioned within the fluid dispenser system so that the mixture of liquid and gas passes along [a] tortuous passageway,” causing “the larger droplets of liquid [to be] removed from the mixture.” Id. at 2:48–55. In this way, the separator “achieve[s] the desired vapor and avoid[s] the presence of liquid droplets in the gas and liquid mixture.” Id. at 1:20–22. Giroux relates to “a novel integrated nebulizer and particle dispersion chamber” that “provides for delivery of a vortical flow of nebulized particles to the nostrils.” Giroux at Abstract. To achieve the size and velocity characteristics that are important for effective drug delivery, Giroux teaches forcing the particles to flow through a “baffle” that is in a “generally serpentine or helix shape,” which “create[s] motion of the nebulized particles in a vortex as they exit the dispersion chamber.” Id. at 13:32–42. 1 U.S. Patent No. 7,878,418 (“Sevy”). 2 U.S. Patent No. 4,243,396 (“Cronenberg”). 3 U.S. Patent No. 8,001,963 (“Giroux”). Case: 19-1659 Document: 36 Page: 6 Filed: 05/19/2020 6 ESIP SERIES 2, LLC v. PUZHEN LIFE USA, LLC Based on the prior art and expert testimony, the Board determined that the challenged claims would have been obvious in view of Sevy and Cronenberg and in view of Sevy and Giroux. J.A. 40, 47. The Board found that Sevy discloses every element of the challenged claims except for the “arcuate channel” limitation of the “separating” claim element. J.A. 23–31. The Board found that both Cronenberg and Giroux disclose the “arcuate channel” limitation. The Board explained: [N]either reference, considered by itself, teaches forming an arcuate channel through a wall for the purpose of separating liquid droplets out of a mixed air-droplet flow. Sevy’s separator passes flow through a wall, but not using an arcuate passage- way. Cronenberg [and Giroux] teach[] accomplishing the same type of separation using an arcuate passageway, but not one passing through a wall. J.A. 27, 43. The Board determined that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of each reference with Sevy to arrive at the claimed invention. The Board also addressed in its final written decision ESIP’s argument that Puzhen’s petition was barred from institution because Puzhen failed to identify “all real parties in interest” as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). J.A. 849. According to ESIP, Puzhen’s petition failed to identify two real parties in interest: doTERRA International, LLC, and Puzhen Life Co., Ltd. J.A. 5. After considering ESIP’s asserted evidence, the Board determined that neither party was a real party in interest within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) and that Puzhen’s petition was not barred from institution. J.A. 11, 14.