Court Opinion

ID: 9385210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-06 15:00:47.241491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:59.820497
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1697     Document: 29    Page: 1   Filed: 04/06/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                PUREWICK CORPORATION,
                       Appellant

                             v.

                 SAGE PRODUCTS, LLC,
                         Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2022-1697
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-
 01426.
                  ______________________

                  Decided: April 6, 2023
                  ______________________

     THOMAS SAUNDERS, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
 Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also rep-
 resented by HEATHER M. PETRUZZI; OMAR KHAN, LAUREN
 MATLOCK-COLANGELO, New York, NY.

    SANDRA A. FRANTZEN, McAndrews, Held & Malloy,
 Ltd., Chicago, IL, argued for appellee. Also represented by
 CHRISTOPHER M. SCHARFF, ROBERT ANTHONY SURRETTE.
                   ______________________
Case: 22-1697    Document: 29      Page: 2    Filed: 04/06/2023

 2              PUREWICK CORPORATION    v. SAGE PRODUCTS, LLC

     Before TARANTO, CLEVENGER, and HUGHES, Circuit
                        Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     Sage Products, LLC filed a petition in the Patent and
 Trademark Office requesting an inter partes review under
 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 of claims 1, 3–8, and 17–19 of
 PureWick Corp.’s U.S Patent No. 8,287,508 on seven
 grounds. The Board instituted a review and ultimately de-
 termined that all challenged claims are unpatentable on
 two grounds: anticipation by a published patent applica-
 tion, Mahnensmith (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0015080); and ob-
 viousness over the Kuntz-166 patent (U.S. Patent No.
 4,747,166) in view of the DesMarais patent (U.S. Patent
 No. 4,425,130) and the knowledge of a person of ordinary
 skill in the art. Sage Products, LLC v. PureWick Corp.,
 IPR2020-01426, 2022 WL 494803 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2022).
 PureWick timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under
 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c), 319.
     We affirm the Board’s ruling on anticipation. Regard-
 ing the claim limitation requiring “wrapping the [moisture-
 wicking] article over the array [of openings]” in a specified
 device, we see no claim-construction error. The Board also
 had substantial evidence before it to support its findings
 that Mahnensmith disclosed the claimed “wrapping . . .
 over” the openings and, more particularly, disclosed to a
 skilled artisan that the wrapping covered all openings. In
 light of our conclusion regarding anticipation, we need not
 and do not reach PureWick’s challenges in this court to the
 Board’s obviousness determination.
                        AFFIRMED