Rolls-Royce handed victory in IPR brought by GE
Engineering company Rolls-Royce has been handed victory in an inter partes review (IPR) brought by multinational GE.
Rolls-Royce is the owner of US patent number 8,715,809 B2, titled “Composite structure”, which describes a composite structure for aerofoil guide vanes in a gas turbine compressor.
Guide vanes are fixed aerofoils that direct gas into the moving blades of a gas turbine, or into or around bends in ducts.
GE brought a petition to institute an IPR of claims 1—18 of the patent, stating that they were anticipated by Vendramini (publication number 2625528), which was published in 1989.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted the trial in a preliminary proceeding because GE “demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving the challenged claims unpatentable”.
During prosecution of the application that became the ‘809 patent, the examiner cited US patent number 5,725,709 (Jensen), asserting that it anticipated claim 1 including the limitation “a laminar core assembly defining a bend between the aerofoil and the platform”.
Rolls-Royce overcame the Jensen patent during prosecution by “amending the claims to recite a relative bend between the aerofoil and the platform ply”, said the board.
On Wednesday, July 26, the PTAB issued a final decision, holding that the claims of the patent were patentable in light of the prior art.
According to the PTAB: “Under the proper claim construction, Vendramini is little different from Jensen ‘709, where Jensen was overcome by amendment of the independent claims during prosecution.”
It added that neither of the prior art references disclosed a bend in the laminar core causing relative separation between the laminar core assembly and the platform ply.
“Therefore, Vendramini does not disclose all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 17, and claims 2–10, 15, 16 and 18 which depend therefrom are also not anticipated by Vendramini,” said the PTAB.
It added that claims 12–14 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, and because the board found that claim 1 wasn’t anticipated by Vendramini, the dependent clams are not obvious.
GE sued Rolls-Royce back in August 2004 at the US District Court for the District of Columbia, in an attempt to remedy decisions made by the PTAB in an interference proceeding. The case was closed the following year.
A spokesperson for GE said: “While the Rolls-Royce patent was ultimately determined as valid, this was only after Rolls-Royce had disavowed several broad sweeping claims within the patent.”
Joel Reuter, spokesman for Rolls-Royce, said: “Rolls-Royce is pleased with this sweeping victory that recognises its advanced technology relating to composite vanes for jet engines.”
In contrast to the GE statement, he added that the PTAB affirmed the “patentability of all originally-issued claims without amendment and those claims today remain entitled to the same scope as when they issued in 2014”.
Rolls-Royce was represented by Duane Morris.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox
Today’s top stories:
Germany’s Supreme Court refers copyright queries to CJEU
ASCAP teams up with BMI to launch licensing database
Dentons adds three partners and 11 associates from MoFo
Chocolate brand seeks declaratory relief to stop Mars litigation
