`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper 113
`Entered: September 30, 2020
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`AMERICAN NATIONAL MANUFACTURING INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SLEEP NUMBER CORPORATION f/k/a SELECT COMFORT
`CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2019-00497 (Patent 8,769,747 B2)
`IPR2019-00500 (Patent 9,737,154 B2)
`IPR2019-00514 (Patent 5,904,172)1
`
`
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, and
`ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Dismissing Petitioner’s Motion for Additional Discovery
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.24, 42.51(b)(2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 We issue one Order and enter it in each proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00497 (Patent 8,769,747 B2)
`IPR2019-00500 (Patent 9,737,154 B2)
`IPR2019-00514 (Patent 5,904,172)
`
`
`Following a November 22, 2019 email from American National
`Manufacturing Inc., (“Petitioner”), we authorized via email on December 12,
`2019, Petitioner to file a Motion for Additional Discovery (“Motion,” or
`“Mot.”) and Sleep Number Corporation (”Patent Owner”) to file an
`Opposition (“Opposition,” or “Opp.”) to the Motion in each of the above-
`captioned proceedings. Petitioner filed a Motion for Additional Discovery
`on December 19, 2019.2 Paper 62. Patent Owner filed an Opposition on
`December 31, 2019. Paper 65. Petitioner’s Motion requested additional
`discovery relating to Patent Owner’s advertising and marketing expenditures
`as it relates to commercial success and Patent Owner’s assertions of
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness. Mot. 1.
`In our Final Written Decision (Paper 105, “Decision” or “Dec.”), we
`determined that Patent Owner’s evidence of commercial success was entitled
`to minimal probative weight. Dec. 95. And overall, we determined that
`Patent Owner’s objective evidence of non-obviousness had little if any
`probative weight in support of patentability of claims 1–22. Id. at 104.
`Because we did not find Patent Owner’s objective evidence of non-
`obviousness, e.g., commercial success evidence, outweighs the strong
`evidence of obviousness as to claims 1–4, 7–14, and 16–19 submitted by
`Petitioner, we determine that Petitioner’s Motion seeking additional
`discovery to argue this same position does not affect our determination as to
`these claims. Moreover, in our Decision, we determined that Petitioner has
`not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the asserted
`combinations teach or suggest that the deflate pressure adjustment factor is a
`
`
`2 For brevity we refer only to papers in IPR2019-00500.
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00497 (Patent 8,769,747 B2)
`IPR2019-00500 (Patent 9,737,154 B2)
`IPR2019-00514 (Patent 5,904,172)
`
`multiplicative pressure adjustment factor required in claims 5, 6, and 15. As
`such, Petitioner’s Motion seeking Patent Owner’s marketing and advertising
`expenditures obviousness with respect to these claims is also moot. Id.
`It is, therefore,
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for additional discovery is
`dismissed.
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Kyle L. Elliott
`Kevin S. Tuttle
`Jaspal S. Hare
`SPENCER FANE LLP
`kelliott@spencerfane.com
`ktuttle@spencerfane.com
`jhare@spencerfane.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Steven A. Moore
`Kecia J. Reynolds
`Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
`steve.moore@pillsburylaw.com
`kecia.reynolds@pillsburylaw.com
`
`Luke Toft
`Fox Rothschild LLP
`ltoft@foxrothschild.com
`
`
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
