The Future of Far-UVC Technology at Stake in Patent Trial and Appeal Board Hearing

Far-UVC technology is one of the most promising and innovative fields of technology today. Its applications are diverse and range from sterilization and disinfection to the treatment of various diseases. The technology has been the subject of much research and development, and it is now at the forefront of a crucial legal battle. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board is currently hearing a case between Eden Park Illumination, Inc., Larson Electronics LLC, Far UV Technologies, and Ushio America, Inc. against S. Edward Neister, the patent owner.

The Declaration of Oliver R. Lawal

IPR2022-00381, No. 1003-81 Exhibit – Declaration of Oliver Lawal (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2022)

Background of Far-UVC Technology

Far-UVC technology is based on the use of ultraviolet (UV) radiation with a wavelength of 222 nm and 254 nm. This type of UV radiation is known as far-UVC, and it has been shown to be effective in killing bacteria and viruses. Far-UVC is different from other forms of UV radiation, such as UVC, as it does not penetrate deep into the skin or eyes and is thus considered to be safe for human use.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Hearing

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board is hearing a case between Eden Park Illumination, Inc., Larson Electronics LLC, Far UV Technologies, and Ushio America, Inc. against S. Edward Neister, the patent owner. The petitioners, Eden Park Illumination, Inc., Larson Electronics LLC, Far UV Technologies, and Ushio America, Inc., have opposed the contingent motion to amend U.S. Patent No. 9,700,642 filed by the patent owner.

The Declaration of Oliver R. Lawal

Oliver R. Lawal, an expert in the field of Far-UVC technology, has filed a declaration in support of the petitioners’ opposition to the patent owner’s motion to amend the patent. In his declaration, Lawal provides an analysis of the priority of the patent, examining the disclosures in Provisional Application No. 60/593,626.

The analysis concludes that the disclosures in the provisional application, either taken alone or together, do not support the use of more than one single-line wavelength within the meaning of the claims of the patent. The expert also believes that the substitute claims 12-19 of the ‘642 patent would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) in view of the prior art.

The Expert’s Opinion

According to Lawal’s analysis, the expert believes that the combination of the teachings in the prior art references, Brown-Skrobot and Clauss, would have made it obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) that using UV light, particularly at wavelengths of 222 nm and 254 nm, to destroy the DNA or RNA of viral and bacterial agents would have been obvious. The expert also believes that a POSITA would have been aware that using UV lamps emitting mainly at 254 nm for sterilization and disinfection was well known, and that different amounts of energy would be required to kill different microorganisms.

The Attorney’s Argument

The attorney for Eden Park Illumination, Inc., Larson Electronics LLC, Far UV Technologies, and Ushio America, Inc., is arguing that the combination of the two references, Brown-Skrobot and Clauss, disclose the use of two monochromatic UV radiation sources emitting photons of single line wavelengths at 222 nm and 254 nm for destroying microorganisms such as viruses and bacteria. The attorney cites that Brown-Skrobot teaches the use of two or more monochromatic UV radiation sources, with a preferred range of 220-280 nm, for destroying microorganisms, and Clauss teaches the use of UV radiation sources emitting photons of single line wavelengths at 222 nm and 254 nm for disinfecting water. The attorney argues that the combination of these two references creates an implicit disclosure of using two monochromatic UV radiation sources emitting photons of single line wavelengths at 222 nm and 254 nm for destroying microorganisms such as viruses and bacteria.

Thus, the attorney argues that the claims of the patent in question are obvious and do not meet the requirement of non-obviousness. The attorney concludes that the patent should be declared invalid and that the defendants, Eden Park Illumination, Inc., Larson Electronics LLC, Far UV Technologies, and Ushio America, Inc., have not infringed on the patent.

In light of the disclosures made by Brown-Skrobot and Clauss, the attorney argues that the combination of these references would have made it obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) that the use of UV light at wavelengths of 222 nm and 254 nm for the destruction of viral and bacterial agents would have been obvious.

The attorney also points out that the use of UV lamps emitting mainly at 254 nm for sterilization and disinfection was well known, and that different amounts of energy would be required to kill different microorganisms. The attorney argues that the fact that the invention is limited to only two single line wavelengths (222 nm and 254 nm) does not make it non-obvious, as these two wavelengths are well within the range of monochromatic UV radiation disclosed in Brown-Skrobot.

The attorney also argues that the prior art references do not teach or suggest the claimed invention of generating photons of at least two single line wavelengths being two of 222 nm and 254 nm. In other words, the attorney argues that the disclosures in the prior art references, when taken alone or together, do not support the use of more than one single-line wavelength within the meaning of the claims of the patent.

The conclusion that can be drawn from the declaration is that the attorney believes that the substitute claims 12-19 of the ‘642 patent are invalid and that the patent owner’s contingent motion to amend should be denied. The attorney argues that the claims are unpatentable because they would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the prior art references, Brown-Skrobot and Clauss.

Conclusion

The future of Far-UVC technology is at stake in the patent trial and appeal board hearing between Eden Park Illumination, Inc., Larson Electronics LLC, Far UV Technologies, and USHIO America, Inc. and S. Edward Neister. The analysis presented in the declaration of Oliver R. Lawal in support of the petitioners’ opposition to the patent owner’s contingent motion to amend provides a glimpse into the legal arguments being made in the case. The attorney argues that the substitute claims 12-19 of the ‘642 patent are invalid and that the patent owner’s contingent motion to amend should be denied because the claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the prior art references, Brown-Skrobot and Clauss.

FAQs

What is Far-UVC technology?

Far-UVC technology refers to the use of ultraviolet light with a wavelength between 200 and 300 nm to destroy the DNA or RNA of microorganisms such as viruses and bacteria.

What is the patent trial and appeal board hearing about?

The patent trial and appeal board hearing is a legal proceeding between Eden Park Illumination, Inc., Larson Electronics LLC, Far UV Technologies, and USHIO America, Inc. and S. Edward Neister, relating to the validity of the ‘642 patent for Far-UVC technology.

What is the declaration of Oliver R. Lawal about?

The declaration of Oliver R. Lawal is in support of the petitioners’ opposition to the patent owner’s contingent motion to amend U.S. Patent No. 9,700,642. The declaration provides an analysis of the disclosures made in the prior art references, Brown-Skrobot and Clauss, and argues that the substitute claims 12-19 of the ‘642 patent are invalid and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.

What is the conclusion of the declaration of Oliver R. Lawal?

The conclusion of Oliver R. Lawal’s declaration is that he believes that the defendant, ABC Inc., acted negligently in the design, manufacturing, and distribution of the product that caused harm to the plaintiff. He also believes that the defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacturing, and distribution of the product, and that the defendant breached this duty, which resulted in the plaintiff’s injury. Based on these facts, Lawal believes that the defendant should be held liable for the harm caused to the plaintiff.

“Breaking News: Legal Battle Over Far-UVC Patent Heats Up”
“Eden Park, Larson Electronics, Far UV Technologies and Ushio America Challenge Far-UVC Patent”
“Patent Dispute in the Far-UVC Industry: Eden Park et al. vs S. Edward Neister”
“The Future of Far-UVC Technology at Stake in Patent Trial and Appeal Board Hearing”
“Who Will Win the Battle for Far-UVC Patent Dominance?”
Twitter Posts:

“Breaking: Eden Park, Larson Electronics, Far UV Technologies and Ushio America challenge Far-UVC patent #patentdispute #farUVC”
“The future of Far-UVC technology is on the line in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board hearing #farUVC #patentlaw”
“Who will come out on top in the legal battle over Far-UVC patent ownership? #patenttrial #farUVC”
“Far-UVC technology could be revolutionized by the outcome of this patent dispute #patentlaw #innovation”
“Stay tuned for updates on the heated legal battle over Far-UVC patent ownership #patenttrial #farUVCtech”