Case: 20-1147 Document: 101 Page: 1 Filed: 10/23/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
TEAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION,
Appellant
v.
INTEX RECREATION CORP., BESTWAY (USA),
INC.,
Appellees
KATHERINE K. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
Intervenor
______________________
2020-1147
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-
00875.
______________________
Decided: October 23, 2023
______________________
ROBERT M. HARKINS, JR., Cherian LLP, Berkeley, CA,
argued for appellant. Also represented by JAMES MICHAEL
WOODS, Washington, DC; TIMOTHY E. BIANCHI,
Case: 20-1147 Document: 101 Page: 2 Filed: 10/23/2023
2 TEAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION v. INTEX RECREATION CORP.
Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, PA, Minneapolis, MN.
R. TREVOR CARTER, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath
LLP, Indianapolis, IN, argued for all appellees. Appellee
Intex Recreation Corp. also represented by REID E. DODGE,
ANDREW M. MCCOY.
JOHN S. ARTZ, Dickinson Wright PLLC, Ann Arbor, MI,
for appellee Bestway (USA), Inc. Also represented by
STEVEN A. CALOIARO, Reno, NV.
THOMAS W. KRAUSE, Office of the Solicitor, United
States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for
intervenor. Also represented by DANIEL KAZHDAN,
FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED.
______________________
Before LOURIE, DYK, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
Team Worldwide Corporation (“Team Worldwide”) ap-
peals from a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding
that claims 1, 7, and 11−14 of U.S. Patent 7,346,950 are
unpatentable as anticipated by U.S. Patent 6,018,960
(“Parienti”) as well as U.S. Patent 7,039,972 (“Chaffee”).
Intex Recreational Corp. v. Team Worldwide Corp., No.
IPR2018-00875 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 11, 2019), J.A. 1−96 (“Deci-
sion”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
This appeal pertains to an inter partes review (“IPR”) in
which Intex Recreation Corporation (“Intex”) challenged
claims 1, 7, and 11−14 of the ’950 patent. The ’950 patent
is directed to an inflatable product, like an air mattress,
with a built-in pump. See, e.g., ’950 patent, col. 8 l. 55–col.
9 l. 3. Intex asserted multiple grounds of invalidity against
the challenged claims, including anticipation by both
Case: 20-1147 Document: 101 Page: 3 Filed: 10/23/2023
TEAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION v. INTEX RECREATION CORP. 3
Parienti and Chaffee. During the IPR, the Board construed
“built in” to mean “integrated into and not detachable (or
readily removed) from” and construed “pack” to mean “con-
tainer.” Decision at 20–21. The Board then found each of
the challenged claims anticipated by both Parienti, id. at
22–52, and Chaffee, id. at 52–84.
Team Worldwide appealed. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) and
35 U.S.C. § 141(c).
DISCUSSION
We review the Board’s legal determinations de novo, In
re Elsner,
381 F.3d 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and the
Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence, In re
Gartside,
203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). A finding
is supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind
might accept the evidence as adequate to support the find-
ing. Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB,
305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).
Team Worldwide contends that the Board erred in find-
ing that Parienti and Chaffee each anticipated the chal-
lenged claims. In particular, Team Worldwide contends
that the Board erred in determining that Chaffee taught
an anticipatory embodiment in which its pack was not de-
tachable or readily removed from the mattress wall. Deci-
sion at 63–79. We see no error in the Board’s anticipation
determination as to Chaffee, Decision at 63–79, and con-
clude that it was supported by substantial evidence. Be-
cause we affirm the Board’s decision as to Chaffee, we need
not discuss its holdings on Parienti.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Team Worldwide’s remaining ar-
guments and do not find them persuasive. For the forego-
ing reasons, we affirm the Board’s final written decision.
AFFIRMED
