Purewick Corporation v. Sage Products, LLC

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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
______________________
T HOMAS SAUNDERS , Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also rep-
resented by HEATHER M. P ETRUZZI; O MAR K HAN, L AUREN
MATLOCK-C OLANGELO , New York, NY.
SANDRA A. F RANTZEN, McAndrews, Held & Malloy,
Ltd., Chicago, IL, argued for appellee. Also represented by
CHRISTOPHER M. SCHARFF , ROBERT A NTHONY SURRETTE .
______________________
Case: 22-1697 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 04/06/2023

-- 1 of 2 --

PUREWICK CORPORATION v. SAGE PRODUCTS, LLC 2
Before T ARANTO, CLEVENGER , and HUGHES , Circuit
Judges.
P ER 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
Case: 22-1697 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 04/06/2023

-- 2 of 2 --