LMK Technologies, LLC Ex. 2021
`BLD Services, LLC v. LMK Technologies, LLC
`IPR2014-00770
`
`
`BLD Services, LLC v. LMK Technologies, LLC
`IPR2014-00770
`
`
`
`1.
`
`My name is David Fletcher, and l am over 18 years of age, of sound
`
`mind, and fully competent to make this declaration. l have personal knowledge of
`
`the facts stated herein and if called upon to do so,
`
`I could competently testify
`
`thereto.
`
`2.
`
`l have a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from
`
`Virginia Tech University. I have 27 years of relevant industry experience. During
`
`these 27 years,
`
`I have acted as on—site project manager for pipe line repairs,
`
`developed pipe liners to be used for cured—in—place repairs, and engineered pipe
`
`liners and pipeline repair devices. Because of this broad practical and technical
`
`experience, I am well aware of the state of the art at the art during the. relevant time
`
`period. These experiences have also given me a great deal of insight into the usage
`
`of cured—inplace pipe liners and how these systems would have been routinely
`
`modified for unique technical on—site challenges I additionally understand how
`
`one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have viewed and understood pipe liner
`
`products and systems at the time of the alleged invention. My curriculum vitae is
`
`attached as Exhibit l.
`
`3.
`
`l have reviewed the patent prosecution history of US. Patent No.
`
`8,667,991 ("the ’991 patent") and the references denoted therein.
`
`l have also
`
`reviewed the prior art,
`
`the Petition to Institute an lnter Partes Review (the
`
`Z
`
`
`
`"Petition"), and the Patent Owner's Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.120 (the
`
`"Response"). 1 also was present during the Deposition of Norman E. Kampbell, the
`
`individual that the Patent Owner offered as an expert for the ’991 Inter Partes
`
`Review. I also reviewed the Declarations of the inventor, Larry M. Kiest, and Mr.
`
`Kampbell. I provide the following remarks as one of at least ordinary skill in the
`
`field of cured-in-place pipe repair and pipe liner systems. To the extent I have a
`
`skill greater than the artisan of ordinary skill in this art, 1 am familiar with the
`
`knowledge and background of one of ordinary skill in this art both now and at the
`
`time of the invention disclosed in the ’99] patent. My comments are based on the
`
`currently claimed invention.
`
`4.
`
`In my opinion, the Petition adequately defined the scope of the art and
`
`the ordinary level of skill in the art. Specifically, I agree with the statement that.
`
`"[al person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the
`
`'991 patent would have at least an undergraduate degree in engineering and/or ten
`
`years of experience in the pipe repair and/or pipeline installation industry." Petition
`
`at 8. I also believe that this would include designers and field engineers. including
`
`those that were specifying repair methods and procedures along with overseeing
`
`on—site repairs and who may not publish all their work.
`
`5.
`
`In the Response, Patent Owner fails to recognize that the '597 patent
`
`explicitly teaches a gasket positioned at the juncture between the lateral sewer pipe
`
`
`
`and main line sewer pipe—-a known weak point in Cured in Place Pipe ("ClPP")
`
`repairs—-to form a water tight seal between the preliner tube and the main line
`
`sewer pipe and the lateral sewer pipe. See, e.g.. Ex. 1003 at 4:18-22, 9:42—44. This
`
`placement at the juncture would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to position a
`
`gasket, or sealing material that would form a gasket, at the juncture, such as the
`
`material disclosed and utilized in the device of the ’1 18 patent. Ex. 1002 at 1:43—47,
`
`5:28—33, 3:8-13; EX. 1003 at 4:17—23. In fact, in the Response, the Patent Owner
`
`did not appear to argue that the prior art reference did not teach all other elements
`
`of the claimed invention of the ‘991 patent. See generally Response. Instead, the
`
`Patent Owner focuses on the “gasket” and/or band of hydrophilic material placed
`
`at the junction of the main-to—lateral connection. See, e.g., Response at 27~28, 32—
`
`34. The prior art references teach all the parts of the claims of the ‘991 patent.
`
`6.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the term “paste" should be defined by its
`
`plain and ordinary meaning. Response at 8‘ With respect to this statement, as liquid
`
`sealing materials transition from a liquid to a solid (e.g., while curing),
`
`the
`
`materials become gel—like or paste—like in the transition to a solid. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1003 at 10:50—63.
`
`7.
`
`A standard, ASTM F- 2561—06, is described in the Response. ASTM
`
`”standards“ are not strict requirements as used in the industry — they merely serve
`
`as a guideline that is often utilized (and often modified) by municipalities and
`
`
`
`specifying engineers to produce the desired performance. See Ex. 2005 at ‘l[ 41 , 42.
`
`This standard, which the ordinarily skilled artisan could have readily applied,
`
`acknowledges that
`
`the main sheet is wrapped around the "T" launching device and
`
`held firmly by four hydrophilic O—rings. Ex. 2005 at p. 43. Then, a two-part 100%
`
`solid epoxy is applied as a two-inch wide band in a volume of 300 mL to the main
`
`sheet/lateral tube interface to adhere the lateral to the main body portion of the host
`
`pipe or main liner. EX. 2005 at p. 41, 43; Ex. 1010 at 77—79. This standard, which
`
`was later amended as ASTM F 2561—11, does not specify where to place these four
`
`hydrophilic O-rings. As such, one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have
`
`understood that the placement of these rings was not particularly limited. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have routinely modified ASTM F 2561 -06 as well as
`
`modified certain aspects of the ‘l 18 patent.
`
`8.
`
`ASTM F 2561—11, was amended to remedy deficiencies in ASTM F
`
`2561—06 and recites that "l’tlhe lateral
`
`tube shall include a hydrophilic O-ring
`
`attached to the interior surface at the tail end of the tube." EX. 2005 at p. 47 at
`
`5.1.3; compare this to p. 42 at 5.1.3. This addition was not in 2561—06. Patent
`
`Owner is therefore incorrect
`
`to state that
`
`the standard from 2006 used the
`
`containment region approach. It wasn't until 2011 that the ASTM standard actually
`
`incorporated a containment region approach by including a hydrophilic O—ring on
`
`the terminal end of the lateral liner. Response at 41—42, 47. ASTM F 2561—11 is
`
`
`
`irrelevant to the Board's decision because it does not constitute prior art and is only
`
`useful
`
`to demonstrate that
`
`there were known technical flaws in commercial
`
`performance of the '118 technology (as presented in ASTM F 2561—06). Response
`
`at 39, 41-42; Ex. 2005 at pp. 4], 45, 46. Patent Owner, other than in the
`
`declaration, failed to show any definitive data that would coincide with their
`
`assertions about the undisputed success of the commercial performance of the '118
`
`patent. Patent Owner is also incorrect in this regard — those of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the industry were aware that the embodiments of the '118 patent were prone
`
`to leaking.
`
`9.
`
`Patent Owner's depiction of the '991 patent as including a T-Liner®
`
`that has been installed in a host pipe that was previously repaired using a separate
`
`ClPP main liner (Response at 24, '28) narrows the scope of the claims and suggests
`
`the claims must include a ClPP main liner. The claims are broader than the T-
`
`Liner® embodiment argued in the Response at 23-24, 28-29.
`
`10.
`
`Patent Owner acknowledged that "it was known in the art at the time
`
`of the invention that underground sewer pipe is particularly vulnerable to leakage
`
`occurring or developing at the connections (junctions) of lateral pipelines with a
`
`mainline pipe.“ (Response at 37 emphasis added).
`
`1 agree with the Patent Owner’s
`
`statement in this regard. Being a particular area of vulnerability, one of ordinary
`
`skill
`
`in the art would have targeted this area to maximize the water sealing
`
`
`
`performance of repair at or near the juncture of the lateral pipeline and the
`
`mainline pipe. See. 6.3., Ex. 1003 at 4:17—23. As an example, see the '597 patent's
`
`positioning of a sealing gasket. Ex. 1003 at Fig. 16, grout 150 positioned at
`
`juncture, 9:45—65,
`
`10:2—8, see also. 11:28~42 showing a similar embodiment.
`
`Because the ’l 18 patent taught the use of hydrophilic seal materials (6.3, including
`
`SWELLSEALTM) and was directed to nearly identical subject matter as the '597
`
`patent, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the '118 patent by
`
`placing hydrophilic sealing material at the juncture to form a gasket that would
`
`create a seal at this area of particular vulnerability.
`
`1].
`
`This placement would also advantageously prevent any water from
`
`leaking into the CIPP-lined pipe through the annulus between the liner and the host
`
`pipe. Ex. 1002, for example, recites that, "lwlhen these T—shaped or Y~shaped liner
`
`tubes are utilized, there is the possibility of water infiltration between the liner tube
`
`and the pipes being repaired." Ex. 1002 at 1:43—47. An annulus is the term that is
`
`commonly used to refer to the gap that exists between a CIPP liner and the host
`
`pipe, as a result of shrinkage of the CIPP liner that inevitably occurs during curing
`
`of the liner. Patent Owner's expert also discusses what is commonly referred to as
`
`an annulus. See, e.g., Ex. 1010 at 173—174, 219. I agree with Patent Owner's expert
`
`that this would have been known at least ten years ago and before the earliest
`
`priority date of the ‘991 patent. Ex. 1010 at 245.
`
`
`
`12.
`
`Patent Owner incorrectly stated that placement of a band at
`
`the
`
`juncture of the '118 patent's T—Liner® would have served no purpose and "would
`
`have been superfluous" because of the motivation to maximize the repair at the
`
`juncture. This statement is contrary to the ASTM standard and to how one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have treated repairs at the time of the invention. As I
`
`have noted above, ASTM 2561—06 requires including a two—part 100% solid epoxy
`
`that is applied as a two—inch wide band in a volume of 300 mL to the main
`
`sheet/lateral tube interface. Ex. 2005 at p. 41, 43. Kampbell believed this was
`
`intended to adhere the lateral to the main body portion of the host pipe or main
`
`liner. Ex. 1010 at 77—79. Epoxy does not provide good adhesion between the liner
`
`and the host pipe. See also Ex. 1010 at 79 ll. 2—l 1. One of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood the advantages of increasing the sealing or adhesion
`
`between the liner and the host pipe. particularly at
`
`the lateral,
`
`to reduce the
`
`likelihood that water would leak through the annulus. See Ex. 2006 at 50. Based on
`
`this, one of ordinary skill in the art would have further considered it obvious to use
`
`a hydrophilic adhesive material such as SWELLSEALTM that would perform better
`
`than epoxy because even without good adhesion, the hydrophilic swelling would
`
`allow it to better seal. See Ex. 1004 at 2; Ex. 1005 at 4; Ex. 1010 at 256-257.
`
`13.
`
`Patent Owner‘s contention that one of ordinary skill in the art expected
`
`that the T-Liner® would indefinitely remain watertight ignores ordinary logic and
`
`
`
`the knowledge of one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. The Patent Owner's expert
`
`admitted under oath that a T-Liner® without hydrophilic bands on the main liner
`
`would leak and that
`
`the claims of the patent under review did not require
`
`hydrophilic bands on the main liner. EX. 1010 at 300—301 , 305.
`
`14.
`
`Nevertheless, the '118 patent’s concept of a containment zone—even
`
`when working perfectly—does not stop water from entering the annulus that is
`
`widely known to be created in CIPP repairs (see, e.g., Response at 24—25, 28—29;
`
`see also Ex. 2006 at 50). Once in the annulus, the leaking water could enter the
`
`ClPP liner at any points of misalignment, cracks made by ground movement, or
`
`unrepaired portions of the host pipe. Ex. 1010 at 334—338. Even with placing bands
`
`on the liner of the ‘1 18 patent, this type of leaking was known in the field prior to
`
`the earliest priority date that has been argued for the '991 patent.
`
`In fact,
`
`installation specifications sometimes require that CIPP liners be visually inspected
`
`when the job is done and up to a year later. See EX. 1011 at 11. One of ordinary
`
`skill
`
`in the art would have been aware that some liners installed using the
`
`technology of the '118 patent would leak, especially during these post—installment
`
`inspections. Even Patent Owner’s expert admits that the presence of leaks would be
`
`readily apparent during inspection after installation. See Ex. 1010 at 254~255.
`
`15.
`
`The '991 patent (and corresponding patents of 1PR2014-00’768 and
`
`1PR2014—00772) can be said to have added a ”waterstop” to the technology of the
`
`
`
`'079 patents T—Liner®. EX. 1010 at 36—37. The waterstop may be in the form of a
`
`gasket and/or a paste or other material that forms a gasket once it is applied to the
`
`invertible liner. See Ex. 1003 at 4:17—23, 9:27—61; Ex. 1010 at 36-37. The prior art
`
`explicitly teaches placing a gasket at the juncture (EX. 1003 at 4:17—23, 9:27-61)
`
`along with the use of hydrophilic materials (such as a paste) to seal the annulus
`
`between the liner and the host pipe (Ex. 1002 at 1:43—47, 5:27~34; see Ex. 1004).
`
`The prior art of record would have thus provided the rationale for one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to arrive at the claims of the ’991 patent because the placement of
`
`hydrophilic materials (such as bands) at
`
`the liner juncture was a predictable
`
`variation within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Petition
`
`at 13—14;D.l. at 16—22.
`
`16.
`
`Patent Owner's discussion of a conventional factory molded PVC
`
`"TEE" or ”WYE" pipe is completely irrelevant to the discussion of the ‘991 patent.
`
`PVC is made in a factory under strict quality standards. CIPP lining, on the other
`
`hand, is a variable process used to repair pipelines in the field in adverse conditions
`
`that affect the quality of the final product, where imperfections, misalignment,
`
`variability and errors are common. This is yet another reason one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have wanted to place a compressible material between the stiff
`
`CIPP liner and the damaged lateral pipeline. lmportantly, one of ordinary skill in
`
`1,0
`
`
`
`this art would have wanted to protect the lateral juncture by putting a gasket at that
`
`position to avoid damage to that known weakened location.
`
`17.
`
`The Response discusses these pipe fittings from the perspective of
`
`"lolne skilled in the plumbing arts" (Response at 40), which is completely
`
`irrelevant to the claims of the '99] patent because that is not the perspective put
`
`forth by either Petitioner or Patent Owner.
`
`In other words, the Patent Owner
`
`argues that one of skill in this technology is both a designer and installer of these
`
`systems. Then—when it suits Patent Owner—he calls out to the experience of one
`
`of skilled in the plumbing arts. This is confusing, although I agree that one of skill
`
`in the art of the ’991 patent would sometimes be skilled in the plumbing arts as
`
`well as knowledgeable about CIPP repairs. PVC pipe fittings are different from the
`
`technology of the ’991 patent and have no relevance to the combination of the cited
`
`prior art references.
`
`18.
`
`The cited South Palos Report showed that the repairs using the T
`
`Liner® did not completely eliminate in-Ieakage and infiltration (”I/l"). See Ex.
`
`2006 at p. 70. Indeed, even if all of the reduction of 1/1 of the South Palos report is
`
`attributed to the T—Liner®, the report shows that the T—Liner® could reduce 1/1 by a
`
`maximum of 59.6%. See Ex. 2006 at p. 70. One of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have thus been motivated to modify the T—Liner®. In light of this data and contrary
`
`11
`
`
`
`to the Response at 13, 19—20, it was known that the liner assembly of the prior art
`
`was not entirely watertight.
`
`19.
`
`Applying the other cited prior art references to the device of the 'l 18
`
`patent does not change the principle of operation of the '118 patent because the
`
`'597 patent, which is also directed to CIPP liners, suggests the inclusion of a gasket
`
`at the pipe juncture (Ex. 1003 at Fig. 16, grout 150 positioned at juncture, 10:2—8,
`
`4:17—23). The De Neef documents describe the use of a hydrophilic material as a
`
`paste
`
`or
`
`gasket
`
`(SWELLSEALTM;
`
`see
`
`generally,
`
`Exs.
`
`1004-1006).
`
`SWELLSEALTM is explicitly recommended by the ’1 18 patent as a component for
`
`sealing pipes from an influx of water (Ex. 1002 at 5:28—54), and these references
`
`are combined to solve the same problem.
`
`20.
`
`The principle of operation of all of the prior art references is thus
`
`retained because the combination serves to form a watertight seal using pipe—liners
`
`to compress sealing materials against a leaking pipe at a pipe junction in the same
`
`way as claimed by the '991 patent.
`
`21.
`
`Patent Owner argues that there would have been no reason to move
`
`any of the ‘118 bands to the juncture because this would allegedly only serve to
`
`minimize the effective size of the containment region established by the bands. See
`
`Response at 44-49. One of ordinary skill in the art would have considered multiple
`
`factors when modifying the repair of a pipe juncture for specific job conditions, for
`
`12
`
`
`
`example, increasing the width, positioning, or number of the hydrophilic bands or
`
`O-rings, and positioning them closer or further from the juncture to improve
`
`performance. In fact, one reason to move the containment region closer to the
`
`juncture would be to increase the performance and reduce the likelihood of
`
`buckling discussed by Patent Owner's expert. Ex. 1010 at 335837. Patent Owner
`
`tries to limit the teachings of the '118 patent by ignoring the fact that the ‘118
`
`patent’s figures merely provide an illustration but do not require a single placement
`
`position for the hydrophilic bands.
`
`In fact, I am told that patent figures are not
`
`necessarily to scale unless they specifically indicate they are. The '991 patent's
`
`figures do not indicate they are drawn to scale. One of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have immediately envisioned altering the sizes and relative positions of
`
`hydrophilic seals to achieve predictable results in response to varying conditions at
`
`job sites.
`
`22.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately recognized
`
`the advantages of applying additional sealing material in the region most likely to
`
`have cracks or leaks (La, the juncture; Response at 37, 45, 48—49) and one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have thus been motivated to include a gasket or a
`
`sealing material that would form a gasket at the juncture. Even if there might
`
`occasionally be difficulty in placing additional sealing material in the region of the
`
`juncture (Response at 31—32, 52), this would not be more difficult than matching
`
`13
`
`
`
`the lateral line tubing using pull—in—place or inversion CIPP. It would not inhibit
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art from placing materials on the ClPP main liner and
`
`lateral liner to envelop the juncture region, forming a gasket, and maximizing the
`
`likelihood that the sealing material would fix cracks or leaks. See Ex. 1003 at 4:17-
`
`23, 10:50—63.
`
`23.
`
`The Response mischaracterizes the role of the chemical grout/open
`
`cell foam of the '597 when Viewed in combination with the teachings of the '118
`
`patent. Response at 15. The Response states that, ”[tlhe chemical grout expelled
`
`from the foam forms the seal, not the foam carrier" (Response at 15), but this is not
`
`the case. In fact, the open cell foam would retain some of the chemical grout and
`
`act as one element of a seal formed at the junction using chemical grout, open cell
`
`foam, and, optionally, a liner that is compressing these materials against the inner
`
`wall of the damaged pipe as well as into the annulus depending on the external
`
`pressure on the pipe. See EX. 1003 at 4:17—23, 10:50—63; Ex. 1012 at 43—44; see
`
`also Ex. 1011 at 25. Indeed, the '597 teaches the inclusion of a gasket placed at the
`
`juncture. Ex. 1003 at 4:17—23,
`
`1 1:37-39. Even if a portion of the chemical grout did
`
`get expelled, the '597 patent still teaches where to put hydrophilic gasket materials,
`
`such as the SWELLSEALTM of the '118 patent. Id. Hydrophilic chemical grout that
`
`is placed in an open cell foam may be fully cured, forming a compressible gasket
`
`on the main liner and lateral liner juncture prior to insertion of the liner. This is
`
`14
`
`
`
`because hydrophilic chemical grout can be mixed so that it cures within minutes or
`
`up to an hour, depending on how the chemical grout
`
`is formulated and the
`
`exposure to moisture. See also Ex. 1010 at 65—67. Because the pulled—in-place
`
`process may take about 15—20 minutes and the hydrophilic chemical grout is placed
`
`on the liner prior to pulling in place, the open cell foam and grout mixture may
`
`form a pre—formed rubbery gasket that would cradle the juncture when the liner is
`
`put into place, depending on how the installer chooses to use it.
`
`24.
`
`The Response asserts the donut shaped gaskets that are found in the
`
`'597 patent are not really gaskets and would not work in the “991 patent. Response
`
`at 13—14. I disagree. The donut shaped gaskets of the ’597 are open cell foam,
`
`which Kampbell admitted would spring back to their original shape if squeezed
`
`(Ex. 1010 at 203—204) and are thus compressible, which satisfies the claim
`
`limitations. They are filled with a substance that becomes rubbery when it cures,
`
`then the foam donut gasket would still be rubbery when squeezed. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1003 at 11:32-37. Indeed, these are gaskets placed at the juncture that would form
`
`a watertight seal. Moreover,
`
`in my experience,
`
`I have observed hydrophilic
`
`chemical grout that has been retained on the inside of a pipe after a repair using
`
`hydrophilic Chemical grout. The hydrophilic chemical grout that remained on the
`
`inside of the pipe was rubbery and compressible. For illustration, this is shown in a
`
`presentation attached as Exhibit 1012 at page 43—44. Not only does hydrophilic
`
`
`
`chemical grout
`
`form a
`
`rubbery and compressible material once
`
`cured,
`
`SWELLSEALTM materials (as disclosed in the “118 patent, Ex. 1005 at 5:28-51)
`
`are also in the form of rubber shapes or pastes that are rubber once cured. Ex. 1004
`
`at 2 ("cured: rubbery"); Ex. 1005 at 2 (”available in extruded rubber shapes”). Not
`
`only does the prior art teach these rubbery waterstops (see Exs. 1004—1006) but
`
`even Patent Owner acknowledges the existence of hydrophilic rubbery sealing
`
`materials prior to the ’991 patent. See Response at 50.
`
`25.
`
`While Mr. Kampbell swore in his testimony that rubber is not
`
`compressible (Ex. 1010 at 208 11. 15-18), 1 disagree and believe his assertions in
`
`this regard are not widely—if at all—accepted by those of ordinary skill in the art
`
`either now or at the time of the alleged invention. His assertions that the “597
`
`gaskets are not actually gaskets is incorrect and flies in the face of the patent.
`
`26.
`
`As a result, it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to place sealing materials at the juncture or modify the positioning of
`
`the sealing material to maximize the likelihood that the sealing material would
`
`form a gasket and fix cracks or leaks, thus improving the sealing properties of the
`
`device.
`
`27.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have been equipped with all the
`
`tools of
`
`the
`
`trade
`
`(6.3., hydrophilic
`
`rubbery sealing materials
`
`such
`
`as
`
`SWELLSEALP‘'1; Ex. 1002 at 5:28-51; see Ex. 1004 and chemical grout; see Ex.
`
`16
`
`
`
`1003 at 4:17—23) and would have considered all criteria when selecting suitable
`
`materials constituting a simple substitution of one known element for another,
`
`producing predictable results. Because of this, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have found it obvious to substitute a hydrophilic material from the '118 patent and
`
`the SWELLSEALTM documents
`
`(Exs.
`
`1004-1006)
`
`such as De Neef and
`
`Kempenaers for the chemical grout of the '597 patent to incorporate the advantages
`
`of the hydrophilic sealing materials such as their ability to seal rough or irregular
`
`joints.
`
`28.
`
`Because chemical grout
`
`(and the corresponding open cell foam)
`
`would be positioned at
`
`the pipe juncture,
`
`filling the space(s) between and
`
`preventing leakage, and compressed between the inner pipe walls, the earth, and
`
`the CIPP liner, a gasket would be formed. See Ex. 1003 at 4:17-23. Both open cell
`
`foam with (or without) chemical grout and hydrophilic sealing material placed at
`
`the juncture would fill the voids between the mating surfaces and be compressed,
`
`thus satisfying the general definition of a gasket along with the definition of the
`
`prior art. EX. 1003 at 4:17—23, 10:2—8, 10:50—63. Nevertheless, with the disclosure
`
`of SWEALSEALTM in the '118 patent, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`used a SWEALSEALTM gasket or paste in the juncture as described in '597.
`
`29.
`
`Patent Owner is also wrong regarding the argument (Response at 48)
`
`that the chemical grout would only create a barrier on the outside of the pipe. Even
`
`17
`
`
`
`if some of the chemical grout migrates outward into the soil, logic and experience
`
`dictates that some grout must be retained at the interface between the CIPP liner
`
`and the pipe, positioning grout inside of the pipeline and forming a seal. (See ‘I[ 23
`
`above) The Response even illustrates this effect (Response at 15) in a figure
`
`demonstrating the use of chemical grout, which shows that even when the chemical
`
`grout is pushed to the outside of the pipe, grout remains on the inside of the pipe as
`
`well. In the Response and the Declarations, Patent Owner shows photographs and
`
`illustrations of unimpeded formation of cured grout on the outside of the pipe.
`
`These photographs and illustrations fail to account for the facts that hydrostatic
`
`pressures and pressures from dirt/soil on the water 1/1 points will not simply allow
`
`the grout to form as shown in the Response and Declarations. Such pressures
`
`would also force grout expansion and curing into the juncture and the annular
`
`space around the juncture, especially where the water l/l points of the junctures are
`
`very narrow. Patent Owner's arguments regarding the effect of the chemical grout
`
`is nevertheless irrelevant because one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have
`
`recognized the likelihood of cracks and leaks at
`
`the juncture, understood the
`
`applications and benefits of the '118 patent and the '597 patent, and would have
`
`understood the effects and usefulness of hydrophilic materials suitable for sealing
`
`pipe cracks. Besides, even if the Patent Owner were correct regarding chemical
`
`grout, this says nothing about the use of SWELLSEAL
`
`at this position, which is
`
`TM
`
`18
`
`
`
`a rubbery hydrophilic paste or preformed gasket that is part of the combination of
`
`references. See, e.g., Petition at 13—15.
`
`30.
`
`Patent Owner's
`
`arguments
`
`(Response
`
`at
`
`51)
`
`regarding
`
`pipe
`
`penetrations are also irrelevant. Merely because a prior art reference demonstrates
`
`that SWELLSEALTM materials can be used to seal pipe penetrations, this would
`
`not foreclose one of ordinary skill in the art from also using SWELLSEALTM or
`
`other hydrophilic materials in the manner explicitly envisioned by the 'llS patent
`
`and further described by the De Neef documents and the Kempenaers reference.
`
`3].
`
`1 am being compensated for the time spent preparing this declaration
`
`at my hourly consultant rate, which is not contingent upon the outcome of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`32.
`
`All of the foregoing statements made of my own knowledge are true
`
`and all statements made based on information and belief are believed to be true. I
`
`have been informed by Counsel that willful false statements and the like are
`
`punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both under, l8 U.S.C. § 1001.
`
`Signature:
`
`/David A. Fletcher/
`
`David A. Fletcher
`
`Date:
`
`May 272 2015
`
`19
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`
`
`David A. Fletcher
`
`applieddaf@charter.net
`39 Deep Brook Rd, Newtown, CT 06470l (914) 548—1938
`
`EDUCATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`June 1985
`Bachelor of Science
`
`Major: Civil Engineering
`
`Virginia Tech University
`Blacksburg, VA
`
`EXPERIENCE (27 Years Industry Experience)
`
`1997 to Present
`Applied Sales LLC
`Owner, Sales Consultant
`Newtown, CT
`0 Representative and technical salesman for the largest manufacturer of pipe
`liners in the United States, utilizing vast industry knowledge and developing
`technology in the area of cured-in-place main line and lateral line pipe repair
`including main line and lateral line pipe junction repair and renovations.
`0 Engineering support for installation of pipe liners used in main line and
`lateral line repairs, and insure tailored modifications for customer
`installation specifications .
`0 Assist customers in tailoring specific solutions for cure-in-place main line
`pipe repairs and pipe junctions.
`0 Oversee training and hands-on field experience. in cured—in—place
`installations and repair projects concerning multiple line pipe systems,
`including main line, lateral line, and junction repair.
`
`Pipelining Products, Inc.
`1992-1997
`Mamaroneck, NY
`Founder, Executive Vice president
`0 Developed methods and systems for use in main and lateral pipe line repairs
`using cure-in—place procedures.
`0 Modified known pipe liner systems to address multifaceted problems
`encountered during installation of main and lateral pipe line repair jobs.
`9 Managed cured—in—place installation projects for municipal, residential and
`private entities.
`' Trained and managed training and on—hands field experience of installation
`crew members, including cured—in—place techniques and systems.
`
`1988-1992
`Project Manager
`
`U-Liners East, Inc/Midwest Pipeliners, Inc.
`Mamaroneck, NY/Columbus, OH
`
`21
`
`
`
`0 Acted as on—site project manager using polyethylene U—liners to repair
`damaged main pipe lines.
`
`1986—1988
`Sales Associate
`
`NCR Corporation
`Washington, DC
`
`0 Technical salesman selling front—end processors for main frame computers.
`
` ACHIEVEMENTS
`
`Sustainable Water Infrastructure Management (SWIM)
`2012-Present
`Founding Board Member
`Virginia Tech
`0 Founded academic group charged with creating data base and build
`trenchless sewer case studies for municipalities.
`
`1999-2004
`2004
`
`1999-2003
`
`National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO)
`President
`
`Board Member & Officer
`
`0 Provided industry support related to cure-in-place pipe repair procedures and
`general sewer repairs.
`0 Gained exposure to broad and varied applications involving sewer repair,
`trenchless technology, and cure—in—place pipe repair techniques.
`0 Elected to president because of recognition by the industry trade
`organization.
`
`Trenchless Technology Magazine
`December 1997
`Young Leader Designee
`0 Recognized as a stand-out in the industry as a young leader in a premier
`industry magazine dedicated to trenchless pipe work.
`
`22
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
