Paper No. 1
`Filed: February 22, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ARKEMA INC. AND ARKEMA FRANCE
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`PGR2016—O00 1 2
`
`Patent No. 9,157,017
`
`PETITION FOR POST—GRANT REVIEW
`
`1 of 96
`
`Arkema Exhibit 1007
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................... .. 1
`
`II.
`
`Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................................. ..2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest ........................................................................ ..2
`
`Related Matters .................................................................................... ..2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Related U.S. Litigation a.nd Reexaminations ............................ ..3
`
`The European Opposition of EP 1 716 216 .............................. ..3
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel .................................................................... ..7
`
`Service Information ............................................................................. ..8
`
`III.
`
`Payment of Fees ............................................................................................. ..8
`
`IV.
`
`Time for Filing Petition ................................................................................. ..8
`
`Grounds for Standing ..................................................................................... ..8
`
`VI.
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Claim Challenged ............. ..9
`
`VII.
`
`Industry Trends and the PriorArt Development of HFO-1234yf ............... ..1l
`
`VIII.
`
`Claim Construction ...................................................................................... .. 14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................... ..15
`
`“an automobile vapor compression air conditioning system
`usable with refrigerant l,1,1,2—tetrafluoroethane (HFC-
`134a)” ................................................................................................ .. 15
`
`“low toxicity refrigerant suitable for use in automobile air
`conditioning” ..................................................................................... .. 1 6
`
`“no substantial acute toxicity as measured by inhalation
`exposure to mice and rats” ................................................................ .. 18
`
`2 of96
`
`

`
`E.
`
`“a capacity relative to HFC-134a of about 1 and a
`Coefficient of Performance (COP) relative to HFC—l34a of
`about 1” ............................................................................................. ..19
`
`F.
`
`“stable” .............................................................................................. ..19
`
`IX.
`
`The ’01 7 Patent Has an Effective Filing Date of March 26, 2014 .............. ..2O
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Honeywell’s Description of Its Alleged Invention During
`Prosecution of the ’01 7 Patent .......................................................... ..22
`
`The Prior Applications Do Not Describe HFO-l234yf +
`PAG for AAC .................................................................................... ..24
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The AAC application is at best a wish or plan for
`further development ................................................................ ..25
`
`The specifically claimed invention—AAC + HFO-
`1234yf + PAG—is simply not disclosed ................................ ..29
`
`The Prior Application Does Not Enable HFO-1234yf + PAG
`for AAC ............................................................................................. ..33
`
`Incorporation by Reference Does Not Provide the Missing
`Support .............................................................................................. ..36
`
`E.
`
`Conclusion ......................................................................................... ..37
`
`Detailed Discussion of Reasons that the Claims of the ’017 Patent
`
`are Unpatentable .............. .._.......................................................................... ..37
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Subject Matter of the Claims of the ‘Q17 Patent Was in
`Public Use Before March 26, 2014 ................................................... ..37
`
`Claims 1-12 and 14-20 Are Anticipated by WO
`2007/002625 ...................................................................................... ..46
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Heat transfer composition components ................................... ..47
`
`Refrigerant properties ............................................................. ..49
`
`Independent Claims 1, 6, and 19 ............................................. ..50
`
`a)
`
`Claim 1 .......................................................................... ..5l
`
`3 of96
`
`iii
`
`

`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Claims 6 and 7 .............................................................. ..52
`
`Claim 19 ........................................................................ ..54
`
`4.
`
`The Dependent Claims ............................................................ ..54
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`0)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`Claims 2, 1 1, and 14 — about 30% to about 50%
`lubricant ........................................................................ ..54
`
`Claims 3, 8, 15, and 20 - at least about 70% by
`weight HFO-1234yf...................................................... ..55
`
`Claims 4, 9, 16, and 20 - no substantial acute
`toxicity .......................................................................... ..55
`
`Claims 5, 10, 17, and 20 - GWP of not greater
`than about 150 ............................................................... ..56
`
`Claim 18 - refrigerant consisting of HFO-
`l234yf ........................................................................... ..57
`
`f)
`
`Claim 20 ........................................................................ ..57
`
`Claims 1-20 Are Obvious Over Minor & Spatz and the
`Claims ofU.S. Patent No. 8,065,882 ................................................ ..58
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`AAC Heat Transfer Compositions Comprising HFO-
`l234yf and PAG...................................................................... ..60
`
`Heat Transfer Composition Properties ................................... ..61
`
`Minor & Spatz and the ’882 Patent Claims Disclose
`Methods Identical to Those of the ’0l7 Patent Claims........... ..64
`
`The Compositions of the ’01 7 Patent Are Prima Facie
`Obvious and Honeywell Has Not Established Any
`Criticality for Them ................................................................ ..67
`
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Have
`Been Motivated to Optimize Minor & Spatz and the
`‘882 Patent Claims to Arrive at the Claims of the ’017
`
`Patent ....................................................................................... ..69
`
`a)
`
`Optimize to reduce toxicity ........
`
`................................ ..69
`
`4of96
`
`iv
`
`

`
`b)
`
`Optimize for miscibility................................................ ..7O
`
`6.
`
`There is No Objective Evidence of Non-Obviousness ........... ..70
`
`D.
`
`Unpatentability Under § 112 ............................................................. ..71
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Specification Does Not Enable Claims 1-20 ................... ..7l
`
`Claim 13 is Not Enabled ......................................................... ..73
`
`The Claims Are Indefinite ...................................................... ..74
`
`XI.
`
`Conclusion ................................................................................................... ..76
`
`5of96
`
`V
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo ofAm. Inc.,
`601 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................ ..21
`
`In re Applied Materials, Inc.,
`692 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................ ..68
`
`Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) .................................................. ..24, 32
`
`In re Best,
`562 F.2d 1252 (C.C.P.A. 1977) ........................................................................ ..4l
`
`Biogen, Inc. v. Berlex Laboratories, Inc.,
`318 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................................ ..17
`
`Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbot Labs,
`
`636 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................. ..passim
`
`Deering Precision Instruments, L.L. C. v. Vector Distrib. Sys., Inc.,
`347 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................................ ..18
`
`_
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Nova Chem. Corp.,
`803 F.3d 620 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... ..74
`
`Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp.,
`569 F.3d 1335 (Fed Cir. 2009) ......................................................................... ..69
`
`Ex Parte Gary L. Bennis,
`APL 2007-1788, 2007 WL 2161581 (July 27, 2007) ....................................... ..19
`
`Galderma Labs, L.P. v. Tolmar,
`Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013) cert. denied, 134 S. Ct.
`2740, 189 L. Ed. 2d 768 (2014) .................................................................. ..67, 68
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Int ’l Trade Comm ’n,
`341 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................................ ..74
`
`6of96
`
`vi
`
`

`
`In re '3I8 Patent Infringement Litig.,
`583 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................ ..36
`
`In re Curtis,
`354 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................ ..21
`
`In re Farrenkopfi
`713 F.2d 714 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......................................................................... ..71
`
`In re Gardner,
`427 F.2d 786 (C.C.P.A. 1970) .......................................................................... ..72
`
`Inguran, LLC v. Premium Genetics (UK) Ltd., PRG2015-00017,
`Institution Decision, Paper 8, 9 (PTAB Dec. 22, 2015) ............................. ..20, 22
`
`In re Kao,
`639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................. ..70, 71
`
`In re Ruschig,
`379 F.2d 990 (C.C.P.A. 1967) ................................................................... ..passim
`
`In re Spada,
`911 F.2d 705 (Fed. Cir. 1990) .............................................................. ..41, 48, 49
`
`Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool C0,,
`780 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ ..71
`
`LNP Eng ’g Plastics, Inc. v. Miller Waste Mills, Inc.,
`275 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........................................................................ ..18
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................. .. 19, 71
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ...................................................................................... ..74
`
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South,
`LLC, 735 F.3d 1333 (Fed.Cir. 2013) ............................................................68, 71
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1170 (2006)
`(en banc) ........................................................................................................... ..17
`
`7of96
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Power0asz's, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................ ..21
`
`Rasmusson v SmithKline Beecham Corp.,
`413 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................. ..21, 36
`
`Regents ofthe Univ. ofCa. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................................ ..24
`
`Sanofl-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................ ..46
`
`Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pl1arm., Inc.,
`694 F.3d (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................. ..69
`
`SAP America, Inc. v. Arunachalam,
`IPR2014—00414, Paper 11, 11-16 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2014) ............................... ..22
`
`Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner,
`778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir.1985) .................................................. ..41
`
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ........................................................................ ..20
`
`Univ. OfRochester v. G.D. Searle & Co.,
`358 F.3d 916 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... ..24
`
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .......................................................................... ..46
`
`Wyeth & Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Labs.,
`720 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................ ..73
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C.§102(a) ................................................................................................. ..10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) ....................................................................................... ..46, 59
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................. ..10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................................... ..20
`
`35 U.S.C. § l12(a) ........................................................................................... ..10, 24
`
`8of96
`
`viii
`
`

`
`35 U.S.C.§ 112(1)) ................................................................................................. ..11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 119 ...................................................................................................... ..20
`
`35 U.S.C.§ 120 ...................................................................................................... ..20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321 .............................................................................................. ..2, 9, 20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 322 ........................................................................................................ ..2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 323 ........................................................................................................ ..2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324 ........................................................................................................ ..2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ........................................................................................................ ..2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 326 ........................................................................................................ ..2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 327 ........................................................................................................ ..2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 328 ........................................................................................................ ..2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 329 ........................................................................................................ ..2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321(c) ................................................................................................... ..8
`
`America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 3(n)(1), 125 Stat. 284,
`293 (2011) ........................................................................................................... ..9
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R.§ l.57(d) ................................................................................................ ..36
`
`37 C.F.R.§ 1.115 ......................................
`
`........................................................... ..23
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ....................................................................................................... ..2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................. ..8
`
`37 C.F.R. §. 42.200. .................................................................................................. ..2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) ............................................................................................ ..14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.202 ............................................................................................. ..8, 20
`
`9of96
`
`ix
`
`

`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.202(a) ............................................................................................. ..20
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.203(a) ............................................................................................... ..8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a) ............................................................................................... ..8
`
`Other Authorities
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2159.02 ................................................................................................ ..20
`
`10 of 96
`
`x
`
`

`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017 to Singh et al.
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Declaration of J. Steven Brown, Pl1.D.
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`Declaration of William .1. Brock, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`Arkema Inc. and Arkema France v. Honeywell Int ’I, Inc.,
`IPR20l6-00643, Petition for IPR (February 22, 2016)
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`Arkema Inc. and Arkema France v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc.,
`PGR2016-00011, Petition for PGR (February 22, 2016)(“PGR1”)
`
`Exhibit 1007
`
`Arkema Inc. and Arkema France v. Honeywell Int‘l, Inc.,
`PGR2016-00012, Petition for PGR (February 22, 2016)(“PGR2”)
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,065,882 to Singh et al.
`
`
`B. Minor & M. Spatz, HFO—1 234yfLow GWP Refrigerant
`Update, INT’L REFRIGERATION & AIR CONDITIONING CONF.,
`
`Paper 937 (2008)
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`W0 2007/002625 to Singh et al.
`
`Exhibit 1012
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1013
`
`
`
`Behr Hella Service, Refrigerant and Oil Filling Quantities:
`Passenger Cars & Commercial Vehicles 2014-I5
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1 0 14
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 101 5
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1016
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1017
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1018
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1019
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1020
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1021
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,279,451 to Sinh et a1.
`
`Exhibit 1022
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1023
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,534,366 to Sinh et a1.
`
`11 of96
`
`xi
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1024
`
`Exhibit 1025
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,033,120 to Sinh et al.
`
`Reserved
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1026
`
`EP 1 716 216 B1 to Singh et al.
`
`Exhibit 1027
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1028
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1029
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1030
`
`.WO 2004/037913 to Sinh et al.
`
`TranscriptofOralProceedingsinAppealNo.T0860/12-3.3.10
`
`of EPO Opposition of EP 1 716 216 B1 to Singh et al., dated
`September 22, 2015
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1033
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`U.S. Patent Application No. 10/694,273, filed October 27, 2003
`
`Exhibit 1039
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1040
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1041
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 10/837,525, filed April 29, 2004
`
`Exhibit 1042
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1043
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/847,192, filed August 29, 2007
`
`Exhibit 1044
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 13/844,206, filed March 15, 2013
`
`Exhibit 1045
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/225,588, filed March 26, 2014
`
`Exhibit 1046
`
`Exhibit 1047
`
`Application Data Sheet for U.S. Patent Application No.
`14/225,588, filed March 26, 2014
`
`Preliminary Amendment in U.S. Patent Application No.
`14/225,588, filed March 26, 2014
`
`Exhibit 1048
`
`Exhibit 1049
`
`Office Action dated May 29, 2014 in U.S. Patent Application No.
`14/225,588, filed March 26, 2014
`Amendment dated Au ust 29, 2014 in U.S. Patent A lication
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12 of 96
`
`xii
`
`

`
`No. 14/225,588, filed March 26, 2014
`
`Amendment dated December 19, 2014 in U.S. Patent Application
`No. 14/225,588, filed March 26, 2014
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1051
`Exhibit 1052
`
`Exhibit 1050
`
`Exhibit 1053
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1054
`
`Exhibit 1055
`
`Ex Parte Request by Mexichem in Reexam Control No.
`95/000,576, dated October 5, 2010
`
`
`
`
`Action Closing Prosecution in Reexam Control No. 95/000,576
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,279,451, dated May 25, 2012
`
`Exhibit 1056
`
`Ex Parte Request by Mexichem in Reexam Control No.
`95/001,783, dated November 8, 2011
`
`Exhibit 1057
`
`
`
`Declaration of Raymond Thomas originally filed in Reexam
`Control No. 95/001,783, dated October 15, 2012; submitted in
`
`
`
`
`the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017 on August
`29, 2014
`
` Exhibit 105 8
`Ex Parte Request by Mexichem in Reexam Control No.
`95/002,030, dated June 26, 2012
`
`
`
` Exhibit 1059
`Exhibit 1060
`Reserved
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1061
`Exhibit 1062
`Exhibit 1063
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1064
`
`Reserved
`
`
`
`First Action Closing Prosecution in Reexam Control No.
`95/002,030 of U.S. Patent No. 8,065,882, dated December 13,
`2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex Parte Request by Mexichem in Reexam Control No.
`95/002,189, dated September 12, 2012
`
` Exhibit 1065
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex Parte Request by Mexichem in Reexam Control No.
`95/002,204, dated September 12, 2012
`
`Exhibit 1066
`
`Exhibit 1067
`
`Exhibit 1068
`
`Hone well’s Submission in EPO O 3 osition of EP 1 716 216 B1
`
`13 of 96
`
`xiii
`
`

`
` to Singh et al., dated December 20, 2010
`‘EPO Revocation Decision in EPO Opposition of EP 1 716 216
`B1 to Singh et al., dated April 13, 2012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Honeywel1’s Response to the First Office Action in Reexam
`Control No. 95/002,030 of U.S. Patent No. 8,065,882, dated
`
`December 24, 2012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint in Civil Action No. 2: 10-cv-02866-WY in U.S.
`District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania
`
`
`Order, D.I. 100 in C.A. 2: 10-cv—02886-CDJ, dated September 25,
`2013
`
`
`
`
`
`SAE INTERNATIONAL, FACTS COOPERATIVE RESEARCH
`PROGRAM, www.Sae.org/standardsdev/tsb/cooperative/Summary-
`a1tref.pdf ( last visited 02/ 1 8/201 6)
`
`Exhibit 1069 '
`
`Exhibit 1070
`
`Exhibit 1071
`
`Exhibit 1072
`
`Exhibit 1073
`
`Eiiiiiiii “"4
`Exhibit 1075
`
`Exhibit 1076
`Exhibit 1077
`iiiiiiiiii i078
`iiiiiibii “"9
`Exhibit 1080
`
`Exhibit 1081
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1083
`
`Exhibit 1084
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`M.W. Spatz, Update on a Low GWP Refrigerant: Fluid H, SAE
`2007 ALTERNATIVES REFRIGERANT SYSTEMS SYMPOSIUM (July
`
`
`Exhibit 1082
`
`Mark Spatz & Barbara Minor, HFO-1 234yfLow GWP
`Refrigerant.‘ A Global Sustainable Solution for Mobile Air
`
`Conditioning, SAE 2008 ALTERNATE REFRIGERANT SYSTEMS
`SYMPOSIUM (June 10-12, 2008), https://www.chemourS.com/
`Refrigerants/en_US/assets/downloads/SmartAutoAC/
`MAC_SAE08_HFO_1234yf.pdf
`
`17-19, 2007)
`
`
`
`
`
`Mark Spatz & Barbara Minor, HFO-1234yfLow GWP
`Refrigerant Update Honeywell/DuPone Joint Collaboration,
`
`International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference at
`
`
`Purdue (July 14-17, 2008)
`
`
`14 of 96
`
`xiv
`
`

`
`
` Exhibit 1085
`Reserved
`
`SAE INTERNATIONAL, SAE CRP1234: Industry Evaluation of
`Low Global Warming Potential Refrigerant HF0-1234yf (Dec.
`
`9, 2008), http://www.sae.org/standardsdev/tsb/cooperative/
`
`crp1234summary.pdf
`
`
`Exhibit 1086
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`David P. Wilson & Mary Koban, HFO-I 234yfIndustry Update,
`EPA R1 234YF COMMERCI.AL1ZA'l‘ION MEETING (Feb. 6, 2009)
`
`
`
`
`
`SAE INTERNATIONAL, SAE CRP1234: Industry Evaluation of
`Low Global Warming Potential Refrigerant HF0-1 234y}’, (Nov.
`
`
`10, 2009), http://www.sae.org/standardsdev/tsb/cooperative/
`crp1234—3.pdf
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Press Release, SAE International, SAE International Releases
`Test Results of the Low GWP Refrigerant for Mobile Air-
`Conditioning (Nov. 10, 2009), https2//www.sae.org/news/1109/
`
`
`Christian Puhl, Refrigeration Oils for Future Mobile A/C
`Systems, VDA Winter Meeting Saalfelden (2009)
`
`Exhibit 1091
`
`HONEYWELL, HFO 1234YF PRODUCT BROCHURE (Sept. 2010)
`
`Exhibit 1087
`
`Exhibit 1088
`
`Exhibit 1089
`
`Exhibit 1090
`
`Exhibit 1092
`
`Exhibit 1093
`
`Exhibit 1094
`
`Exhibit 1095
`
`Exhibit 1096
`
`Exhibit 1097
`
`
`Press Release, General Motors, GM First to Market Greenhouse
`Gas-Friendly Air Conditioning Refrigerant in US. (July 23,
`
`2010), http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/home.detail.html/
`content/P ages/news/us/en/201 0/July/0723_refrigera.nt.html
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Press Release, SAE International, Cadillac XTS First US. Car
`with R-I234 fA/C Feb. 14, 2012 , htt://articles.sae.or/l0663/
`ACDelco, New R-123 4yfA/C Refrigerant Makes Its US. Debut,
`TECHCONNECT Se t. & Oct. 2012)
`Press Release, Honeywell, Honeywell Announces Major
`Investments to Increase HF0-1 234yfProduction in the United
`States (Dec. 10, 2013), https://honeywell.com/News/Pages/
`Honeywell-Announces-Major-Investments-To-Increase-HFO-
`1234 f-ProductiOn-In—The-United—States.aspx
`Elliot Maras, MACS: Chrysler reports R-I234yfresults in Jeep,
`VEHICLE SERV. PROS (Jan. 2014),
`http://www.vehicleservicepros.conI/news/1 1296735/macs-
`sler—re )orts-r-1234 f~resu1ts-in-jeep—cherOkee
`RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER’S COLLEGE DICTIONARY (2000)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15 of 96
`
`XV
`
`

`
` Thomas J. Leek, Evaluation ofHF0-I 234yfas a Potential
`
`Replacementfor R-1 3 4a in Refrigeration Applications, THIRD
`IIR CONF. ON THERMOPHYSICAL PROPS. & TRANSFER PROCESSES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF REFRIGERANTS 2009)
`O.J. Nielsen et al., Atmospheric Chemistry of CF3 CF=CH2 .'
`Kinetics and Mechanisms of Gas-Phase Reactions with Cl
`Atoms, OH Radicals, and 03, 439 CHEM. PHYS. LETTERS 18
`(2007)
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1098
`
`Exhibit 1099
`
`Exhibit 1 100
`
`Exhibit 1 101
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DuPont, Opteon® Refrigerant Has Low GWP,
`
`http://www.dupont.com/industrieS/autOmOtive/therrna1-
`
`management-hvac/articles/hvac-sustainabilit
`.htm1
`S. Jin & H. Pega, Refrigerant and Lubricant Distribution in AJAC
`S stem, 6 SAE INT. J. PASSEN. CARS - MECH. SYST. 1013 (2013
`C. Zilio, The Refrigerant R1 234yf in Air Conditioning Systems,
`36 ENERGY 6110 2011)
`
`
`Reserved
`Exhibit 1104 Reserved
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1102
`
`Exhibit 1103
`
`
`
`A Exhibit 1 105
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1 106
`
`Exhibit 1 107
`
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`
`
`
`
`AM. NAT’L STANDARDS 1NST., ASHRAE STANDARD 97-1999:
`SEALED GLASS TUBE METHOD TO TEST THE CHEMICAL STABILITY
`OF METHODS FOR USE WITHIN REFRIGERANT SYSTEMS (1999)
`
`Exhibit 1 108
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1 109
`
`Exhibit 1110
`
`
`
`
`
`AM. NAT’L STANDARDS INsT., ASHRAE STANDARD 34-2013:
`DESIGNATION AND SAFETY CLASSIFICATION OF REFRIGERANTS
`
`Exhibit 1111
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1 1 12
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1113
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1114
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1115
`
`Reserved
`
`00 Exhibit 1116
`
`Exhibit 1 1 17
`
`Reserved
`
`
`Reserved
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16 of 96
`
`xvi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`
`Resen/ed
`
`Exhibit 1 122
`
`Exhibit 1 123
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1 124
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1 125
`
`Exhibit 1129
`
`Exhibit 1 133
`
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1 134
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1135
`
`SAE J2765 OCT2008, Surface Vehicle Standard
`Reserved
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1 139
`
`Exhibit 1 143
`
`Exhibit 1 144
`
`Exhibit 1149
`
`Exhibit 1 153
`
`Exhibit 1 154
`
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`
`Reserved
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17 of 96
`
`xvii
`
`

`
`AM. NAT’L STANDARDS INST., ASHRAE STANDARD 34-2010:
`DESIGNATION AND SAFETY CLASSIFICATION OF REF RIGERANTS
`
`
`
`
`
`(2010)
`Action Closing Prosecution in Reexam Control No. 95/001,783
`ofU.S. Patent No. 8,033,120, dated Setember 14, 2012
`Action Closing Prosecution in Reexam Control No. 95/002,189
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,534,366, dated Ma 27, 2014
`
`Action Closing Prosecution in Reexam Control No. 95/002,204
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,534,366, dated Ma 27,2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1 155
`
`Exhibit 1156
`
`Exhibit 1 157
`
`Exhibit 1 158
`
`
`
`
`
`18 of 96
`
`xviii
`
`

`
`AAC
`
`ADS
`
`CFC
`
`COP
`
`GWP
`
`HCFC
`
`HFC
`
`HFO
`
`HFO—1234yf
`
`IHX
`
`PAG
`
`GLOSSARY
`
`Automobile air conditioning
`
`Application data sheet
`
`A
`
`Chlorofluorocarbon
`
`Coefficient of performance
`
`Global Warming Potential
`
`Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
`
`Hydrofluorocarbon
`
`Hydrofiuoroolefin
`
`Internal Heat Exchanger
`
`2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, R—l234yf, or HFC- 1 234yf
`
`Polyalkylene glycol
`
`R—1243zf
`
`1,1,1-trifluoropropene, HFO-1243,zf, or HFC-1243zf
`
`19 of 96
`
`xix
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017
`Petition for Post—Grant Review
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`By at least 2008, the automotive industry targeted HFO-l 234yf as a
`
`commercia11y—viable, low global-warming-potential refrigerant for automotive air-
`
`conditioning. Following extensive industry studies and numerous publications
`
`showing that HFO—l234yf possessed excellent performance properties, low
`
`toxicity, miscibility in common polyalkylene glycol lubricants, and good system
`
`compatibility, the Society for Automotive Engineers announced that “HFO-]234yf
`
`can be used as the global replacement refrigerant in future mobile air conditioning
`
`systems.” European automakers then introduced HFO-1234yf/PAG lubricant
`
`automotive A/C systems as early as 2011, and in the U.S. manufacturers followed
`
`beginning in 2012. By the end of 201 3, there were nearly half a million cars on the
`
`road using HFO—1234yf, including from Ford, Opel, and Mazda.
`
`Honeywell then tried to claim these industry-wide standards as its own. On
`
`March 26, 2014, it filed the application that led to U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017 (Ex.
`
`1001 , “the ’0l 7 patent”) with claims specifically directed to the prior industry
`
`consensus of HFO-1234yf/PAG lubricant for AAC. However, these claims were
`
`unsupported by I-loneywe11’s priority applications, which disclose no such
`
`composition or its use. The claims of the ’0l7 patent therefore have an effective
`
`filing after March 16, 2013, and are subject to post-grant review. They are also
`
`20 of 96
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`unpatentable over the many publications and public uses resulting from the
`
`industry-wide efforts to commercialize HFO—1234yf for AAC.
`
`Accordingly, Arkema respectfully requests post—grant review of claims 1-20
`
`of the ’017 patent in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 321-329 and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.200 et seq. This Petition, supported by the Expert Declarations of Professor J.
`
`Steven Brown, Ph.D. and Dr. William B. Brock, establishes that all claims of the
`
`’017 patent are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art that the Office did not
`
`have before it or did not fully consider during prior examination. Moreover, the
`
`claims are indefinite and not enabled.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`A.
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`Arkema Inc. and Arkema France (collectively “Arkema”), and Arkema S.A.
`
`are the real parties-in—interest.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`The ’017 patent issued on October 13, 2015. Arkema is filing herewith an
`
`inter partes request for review (IPR2016—00643, Ex. 1005) and a second post—grant
`
`request. for review (PGR2016-00011, Ex. 1006). In addition, there are matters
`
`concerning other related patents in both the U.S. and Europe, where Honeywell’s
`
`admissions prove that the ’01 7 patent claims are not entitled to priority earlier than
`
`March 26, 2014, and where similar claims were found unpatentable.
`
`21 of 96
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`1.
`
`Related U.S. Litigation and Reexaminations
`
`Arkenia and Honeywell International, Inc. (“Honeywell”) have been
`
`involved in litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
`
`Pennsylvania on related patents U.S. Patent Nos. 7,279,451 (Ex. 1021, “the ’45l
`
`patent”), 7,534,366 (Ex. 1023, “the ’366 patent”), 8,065,882 (Ex. 1009, “the ’882
`
`patent”), and 8,033,120 (Ex. 1024, “the ’120 patent”),which was stayed pending
`
`the outcome of ex parte reexamination proceedings involving each of those
`
`patents. (Exs. 1073 1] 7; 1075; 1054; 1065; 1064; 1058; 1056.) The Office rejected
`
`the claims in each of those reexaminations as obvious over the prior art. (’45l
`
`patent, Ex. 1055; ’366 patent, Exs. 1157, 1158; ’882 patent, Ex. 1063; ’120 patent,
`
`Ex. 1156.)
`
`Honeywell appealed. Oral arguments have occurred but decisions have not
`
`yet issued. (Appeal Nos. 2015-000615, 2015-006430, 2015-007,833, and 2015-
`
`00616, for the ’451, ’366, ’882, and ’120 patents, respectively.)
`
`2.
`
`The European Opposition of EP 1 716 216
`
`On November 18, 2009, European Patent No. 1 716 216 B1 (Ex. 1026, “EP
`
`’2l 6”) issued with a claim of priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 10/837,525
`
`(Ex. 1041, “the ’525 application”), one of the predecessors of the ’0l7 patent. (Ex.
`
`1002 11214.) The specification of EP ’2 1 6 contains portions of the ’525
`
`application but adds that “[t]his invention relates to refrigerant compositions useful
`
`22 of 96
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017
`Petition for Post—Grant Review
`
`in automobile airconditioning [sic] systems.” (Compare Ex. 1041 at 24-27 with
`
`Ex. 1026 at 5-6; Ex. 1002 1] 215.) Similar to the ’017 patent claims, EP ’216 claim
`
`1 recites “[u]se as a refrigerant of a compositions comprising tetrafluoropropene
`
`(HFO—l234), in an automobile air conditioning system,” with dependent claim 7
`
`narrowing the refrigerant to HFO—l234yf (Ex. 1026 at 6, 7; Ex. 1