Court Opinion

ID: 9892311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 15:01:35.73773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:53.304450
License: Public Domain

Case: 20-1147   Document: 101     Page: 1   Filed: 10/23/2023

         NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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: 2     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”) ap-
 peals 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 (“Deci-
 sion”). 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: 3    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 “con-
 tainer.” 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 find-
 ing. Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).
    Team Worldwide contends that the Board erred in find-
 ing that Parienti and Chaffee each anticipated the chal-
 lenged claims. In particular, Team Worldwide contends
 that the Board erred in determining that Chaffee taught
 an anticipatory embodiment in which its pack was not de-
 tachable or readily removed from the mattress wall. Deci-
 sion at 63–79. We see no error in the Board’s anticipation
 determination as to Chaffee, Decision at 63–79, and con-
 clude that it was supported by substantial evidence. Be-
 cause 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 ar-
 guments and do not find them persuasive. For the forego-
 ing reasons, we affirm the Board’s final written decision.
                       AFFIRMED