Court Opinion

ID: 9947240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 14:01:00.107349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:16.904452
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1724   Document: 43     Page: 1   Filed: 03/04/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                PAUL HARTMANN AG,
                      Appellant

                            v.

     ATTENDS HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC.,
                     Appellee
              ______________________

       2022-1724, 2022-1725, 2022-1726, 2022-1727
                ______________________

     Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
 01477, IPR2020-01478, IPR2020-01479, IPR2020-01480.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: March 4, 2024
                 ______________________

     KATHLEEN DALEY, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
 Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for ap-
 pellant. Also represented by JOSHUA GOLDBERG; BRANDON
 THOMAS ANDERSEN, Reston, VA.

    JEREMY ALBRIGHT, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP,
 Austin, TX, argued for appellee. Also represented by
 STEPHANIE DEBROW, EAGLE HOWARD ROBINSON.
                ______________________
Case: 22-1724     Document: 43     Page: 2    Filed: 03/04/2024

 2 PAUL HARTMANN AG v. ATTENDS HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC.

  Before LOURIE, STOLL, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
 STOLL, Circuit Judge.
     Paul Hartmann AG appeals the final written decisions
 of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in four inter partes
 reviews initiated by Attends Healthcare Products, Inc. The
 Board determined that all claims of Hartmann’s U.S. Pa-
 tent Nos. 8,152,788, 8,784,398, 8,771,249, and 8,708,990
 were unpatentable as obvious. Because the Board based
 its decision on unsupported assumptions, we vacate the
 Board’s determinations and remand for further proceed-
 ings consistent with this opinion.
                         BACKGROUND
      Hartmann’s ’788, ’398, ’249, and ’990 patents (collec-
 tively, the Beckert Patents) relate to adult incontinence di-
 apers. 1 The incontinence diapers include a main part or
 chassis, front side parts or wings, and rear side parts.
 ’249 patent, col. 1 ll. 13–35. The main part includes a liq-
 uid impermeable backsheet that forms the outer face of the
 main part and is directed away from the user’s body. Id.
 col. 1 ll. 13–22, col. 12 ll. 22–26. To close the incontinence
 diaper, the rear side parts are “wrapped onto the abdomen
 side of the user” and connected either to the backsheet or
 the outer face of the front side parts. Id. col. 1 ll. 35–40.
 The patents state that incontinence diapers in the prior art
 use mechanical closure aids consisting of hook-and-loop
 fasteners in which the hooks are present on the rear side
 parts and a corresponding loop component is present on the
 backsheet, or front of the diaper. Id. col. 1 ll. 42–65. This
 corresponding loop component is “a considerable cost fac-
 tor” and may not be comfortable to the user. Id. col. 1 l. 59–
 col. 2 l. 3.

     1    The patents share a specification and thus, we cite
 to the ’249 patent for simplicity.
Case: 22-1724    Document: 43     Page: 3    Filed: 03/04/2024

 PAUL HARTMANN AG v. ATTENDS HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC.      3

      The Beckert patents purport to have an improved clo-
 sure system in which the “retaining forces between the me-
 chanical closure means and the outer face of the main part
 [is] lower than the retaining forces between the mechanical
 closure means and the outer face of the [front] side parts.”
 Id. col. 2 ll. 7–16. Further, the “materials forming the
 outer face of the main part and the outer face of the side
 parts in the front area are inventively chosen so that, in
 addition to their primary function, they can also serve as
 the engagement surface for the closure means.” Id. col. 2
 ll. 17–21.
    Claims 1, 3 and 4 of the ’249 patent are representative
 and are reproduced below, along with claim 2.
    1. An absorbent incontinence diaper for an adult
    user, comprising:
    a chassis having an inner face which, when in use,
    is directed toward a user body and an outer face
    which, when in use, is directed away from the user
    body, said chassis having an absorbent body and a
    backsheet on a side of said absorbent body which,
    when in use, is directed away from the user body,
    said absorbent body having a smaller width than
    said backsheet, said chassis also having a rear
    area, a front area, and a crotch area lying between
    said rear area and said front area, said chassis fur-
    ther defining first and second side edges;
    a first ear attached as a separate component to said
    first side edge in said front area;
    a second ear attached as a separate component to
    said second edge in said front area;
    a third ear attached as a separate component to
    said first side edge in said rear area;
    a fourth ear attached as a separate component to
    said second side edge in said rear area;
Case: 22-1724    Document: 43     Page: 4    Filed: 03/04/2024

 4 PAUL HARTMANN AG v. ATTENDS HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC.

    said third and fourth ears having a closure compo-
    nent including mechanical closure aids which,
    when in use, hold the diaper on the user body when
    said closure component is selectively fastened to ei-
    ther said outer face of said chassis or to said outer
    face of said first and second ears;
    wherein retaining forces between said closure com-
    ponent and said outer face of said chassis are lower
    than retaining forces between said closure compo-
    nent and said outer face of said first and second
    ears.
    2. The absorbent incontinence diaper for an adult
    user of claim 1, wherein said retaining forces are
    determined as over-abdomen retaining forces.
    3. The absorbent incontinence diaper for an adult
    user of claim 2, wherein said retaining forces, de-
    termined as over-abdomen retaining forces between
    said closure component and said outer face of said
    chassis, are 57-20 N/25 mm.
    4. The absorbent incontinence diaper for an adult
    user of claim 3, wherein said retaining forces, de-
    termined as over-abdomen retaining forces between
    said closure component and said outer face of said
    first and second ears, are 90-58 N/25 mm.
 Id. col. 15 l. 59–col. 16 l. 34 (emphases added to highlight
 disputed limitations).
     Attends petitioned for IPRs of the Beckert Patents,
 challenging all claims of each patent. The Board found
 claims 1–54 of the ’249 patent, claims 1–30 of the ’398 pa-
 tent, claims 1–21 of the ’990 patent, and claims 1–21 of the
 ’788 patent unpatentable as obvious over prior art combi-
 nations      including      U.S.     Patent     Publication
 No. 2005/0256496 (Benning) and U.S. Patent Publication
Case: 22-1724     Document: 43      Page: 5    Filed: 03/04/2024

 PAUL HARTMANN AG v. ATTENDS HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC.        5

 No. 2003/0220626 (Karami ’626). 2 Benning, titled “Hy-
 gienic article for incontinence,” discloses an incontinence
 article with a main body portion with front and rear side
 flaps or wings. Benning [0002], [0003], [0053]–[0055].
 Karami ’626, titled “Loopless absorbent article,” discloses
 “an absorbent article having a fastener element which does
 not require a special loop-providing landing zone,” and in-
 stead, the hook-type fastener elements “engage directly
 with any portion of the nonwoven surface constituting
 the . . . backsheet 32 or wings 40.” Karami ’626 [0039]–
 [0041], [0002].
    Hartmann timely appealed all four Board decisions.
 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
                          DISCUSSION
     The Board found that a person of ordinary skill in the
 art would have been motivated to modify Benning’s diaper
 by replacing the fastener elements and material for the
 backsheet of Benning’s diaper with the fastener elements
 and backsheet of Karami ’626’s diaper. Hartmann does not
 dispute this finding of motivation to combine on appeal. In-
 stead, Hartmann argues that the Board erred in finding
 that Benning as so modified by Karami ’626 discloses three
 particular limitations: (1) “hold the diaper on the user
 body”; (2) “retaining forces between said closure component
 and said outer face of said chassis are lower than retaining
 forces between said closure component and said outer face
 of said first and second ears” (which we will refer to as the
 “relative force limitation”); and (3) “retaining forces, deter-
 mined as over-abdomen retaining forces between said clo-
 sure component and said outer face of said chassis, are 57-
 20 N/25 mm” and “retaining forces, determined as over-

     2   The Board’s decisions as to the relevant claim lim-
 itations are similar and thus, we cite to the decision for the
 ’249 patent for simplicity.
Case: 22-1724     Document: 43      Page: 6    Filed: 03/04/2024

 6 PAUL HARTMANN AG v. ATTENDS HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC.

 abdomen retaining forces between said closure component
 and said outer face of said first and second ears, are 90-58
 N/25 mm” (which we will refer to as the “range limita-
 tions”). The relative force limitation is recited in each of
 the claims at issue on appeal. The parties also dispute
 whether the Board relied on inherency or obviousness in
 finding that the prior art discloses these limitations.
                               I
     Turning first to the relative force limitation, Hartmann
 argues that the Board erred by relying on obviousness in-
 stead of inherency to demonstrate that the proposed com-
 bination teaches the limitation. Attends responds that the
 Board did, in fact, rely on inherency to conclude that the
 proposed combination meets this claim limitation.
     “[I]nherency may supply a missing claim limitation in
 an obviousness analysis,” but “the use of inherency . . .
 must be carefully circumscribed in the context of obvious-
 ness.” PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d
 1186, 1194–95 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A claim limitation is in-
 herent “only when the limitation at issue is the ‘natural re-
 sult’ of the combination of prior art elements.” Id. (quoting
 In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (C.C.P.A. 1981). In other
 words, “the mere fact that a certain thing may result from
 a given set of circumstances is not sufficient” to find a lim-
 itation as inherent. Oelrich, 666 F.2d at 581 (citation omit-
 ted). Instead, the “limitation at issue necessarily must be
 present” in the combination. PAR Pharm., 773 F.3d
 at 1195–96.
     Obviousness is a legal determination based on under-
 lying factual findings. See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illu-
 mina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir.
 2016). We review the Board’s ultimate obviousness deter-
 mination de novo and the underlying factual findings for
 substantial evidence. Id. Whether a claimed feature is in-
 herent in the combination of elements disclosed by the
 prior art is a question of fact, reviewed for substantial
Case: 22-1724     Document: 43     Page: 7    Filed: 03/04/2024

 PAUL HARTMANN AG v. ATTENDS HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC.       7

 evidence. See Hospira, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC,
 946 F.3d 1322, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Substantial evidence
 is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might ac-
 cept as adequate to support a conclusion.” In re Mouttet,
 686 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
      Whether the Board relied on inherency or obviousness,
 we agree with Hartmann that the Board erred in finding
 that Benning as modified by Karami ’626 would meet the
 relative force claim limitation. The Board acknowledged
 that Karami ’626 discloses that parameters such as the
 number of fibers and the extent to which they are bonded
 together in the nonwoven as well as the pore size in the
 nonwoven can affect the shear and peel strength and in
 turn, affect the retaining forces. Attends Healthcare Prods,
 Inc. v. Paul Hartmann AG, IPR2020-01479, 2022 WL
 557871, at *22 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2022) (citing Karami ’626
 [0068], [0069]) (’249 IPR Decision). And the Board cor-
 rectly noted that Benning as modified by Karami ’626
 “would have a nonwoven for its . . . backsheet that is of rel-
 atively lower basis weight than the nonwoven for its . . .
 wings,” i.e., the number of fibers would be lower for the
 backsheet compared to the wings. Id. The Board then
 erred, however, in relying on a hypothetical rationale that
 the combination would have the differing retaining forces
 “[i]f the extent to which the fibers are bonded together and
 pore size [were] the same between the two nonwoven ma-
 terials” of the backsheet and wings. Id. The Board did not
 explain or otherwise identify any support to show why the
 nonwovens in the proposed combination would necessarily
 have these characteristics and would thus, necessarily pro-
 vide the required difference in retaining forces. The
 Board’s assumption regarding the characteristics of the
 nonwovens does not satisfy the high “necessarily so” stand-
 ard required for inherency. See Persion Pharm. LLC v. Al-
 vogen Malta Operations Ltd, 945 F.3d 1184, 1191 (Fed. Cir.
 2019) (“Inherency . . . is a high standard.” (citation omit-
 ted)).
Case: 22-1724      Document: 43      Page: 8     Filed: 03/04/2024

 8 PAUL HARTMANN AG v. ATTENDS HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC.

     The Board’s finding that “to the extent that the pro-
 posed combination . . . [does] not necessarily provide the re-
 cited difference in retaining forces, . . . such a difference is,
 at least, suggested [by] Karami ’626” is also not supported
 by substantial evidence. ’249 IPR Decision, 2022 WL
 557871, at *22. Specifically, the Board’s finding is again
 based on the assumption that the “two nonwovens . . . oth-
 erwise have the same extent of bonding and pore size,” but
 the Board did not provide any reason why a person of ordi-
 nary skill would have chosen nonwovens with these char-
 acteristics. Id.
      During oral argument, Attends argued that the Board
 found that it would have been obvious to not just replace
 the fasteners and backsheet of Benning with those in
 Karami ’626, but also to modify the material in Benning’s
 wings to have the same nonwoven characteristics as the
 material in Karami ’626.         Oral Arg. at 13:58–15:40,
 https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=22
 -1724_12052023.mp3. While Attends’s expert opined in
 paragraph 115 of his declaration that “a [person of skill in
 the art] would have readily [modified Benning’s wings and]
 chosen other nonwoven characteristics (e.g., bonding area,
 fiber size, and intersticy size)” to match the nonwoven
 characteristics of Karami’s 626’s backsheet, we do not read
 the Board’s opinion as adopting this proposed further mod-
 ification of Benning. Jezzi Decl. at ¶115. To the contrary,
 the Board explained that “the proposed combination [of
 Benning in view of Karami ’626] does not require modifying
 the relatively heavier nonwoven material that Benning al-
 ready uses for its material sections or wings.” ’249 IPR De-
 cision, 2022 WL 557871, at *21. While the Board cited
 paragraph 115 of Attends’s expert’s declaration, the Board
 did so in addressing a different claim limitation. Moreover,
 the Board’s citation of a page and a half long paragraph
 containing numerous factual assertions does not mean that
 the Board adopted each of the expert’s assertions in that
 paragraph. This is especially true where the sentence the
Case: 22-1724    Document: 43      Page: 9    Filed: 03/04/2024

 PAUL HARTMANN AG v. ATTENDS HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC.      9

 Board cited the expert opinion for merely states “[b]ased on
 the full record, we determine that Benning’s diaper modi-
 fied with Karami ’626’s hook-type fastener would have
 functioned to ‘when in use, hold the diaper on the user
 body.’” Id. at *22.
      As such, we do not find substantial evidence support
 for the Board’s findings regarding the relative force limita-
 tion. Hartmann also argues that the particularly recited
 combination of Benning as modified by Karami also fails to
 disclose the “hold the diaper on the user body” limitation
 for the same reasons that the combination does not disclose
 the relative force limitation. We need not reach this issue,
 however, given our holding regarding the relative force lim-
 itation, which is recited in each of the claims at issue on
 appeal.
                              II
     Turning to the range limitations, Hartmann again ar-
 gues that the Board erred by relying on obviousness rather
 than inherency and that the Board’s findings are based on
 hindsight. We hold that the Board erred in finding that
 Benning as modified by Karami ’626 would provide retain-
 ing forces within the claimed range limitations.
      The specification of Hartmann’s patents-at-issue in
 this appeal describes an embodiment with particular fas-
 teners and nonwovens for the backsheet and wings.
 ’249 patent, col. 14 l. 47–col. 15 l. 57. The specification
 lists the retaining forces resulting from this embodiment
 and these retaining forces fall within the claimed range
 limitations. Id. The Board’s obviousness analysis primar-
 ily depends on its finding that Hartmann “does not dis-
 pute . . . that the fasteners and nonwovens used in the
 [proposed combination involving Benning and Karami
 ’626] match those described in the Specification [of the pa-
 tents-in-suit]” and thus, the proposed combination would
 provide retaining forces that meet the claimed range limi-
 tations. ’249 IPR Decision, 2022 WL 557871, at *24. The
Case: 22-1724    Document: 43     Page: 10   Filed: 03/04/2024

 10 PAUL HARTMANN AG v. ATTENDS HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC.

 Board points to Hartmann’s Response and Sur-reply as ev-
 idence of Hartmann’s alleged admission, but we see no
 such admission by Hartmann in the cited briefing. With-
 out such an admission or any other record evidence to sup-
 port the Board’s assertion (i.e., that the fastener and
 nonwoven materials of Benning in view of Karami ’626
 match those described in the specification of the patent-in-
 suit), the Board’s analysis of whether the prior art combi-
 nation discloses the claimed range limitations is unsup-
 ported and cannot stand.
                        CONCLUSION
     For the foregoing reasons, we vacate and remand the
 decision of the Board.
                VACATED AND REMANDED
                           COSTS
 Costs to appellants.