Board Holds All Claims of ControlTec's Two Refrigeration Condensation Patents Unpatentable in Anthony's IPRs, and ControlTec Appeals.

Two decisions from one panel

On August 25, 2026, a Patent Trial and Appeal Board panel of Administrative Patent Judges Hung H. Bui, Scott A. Daniels and Barry L. Grossman issued a final written decision in Anthony Inc. v. ControlTec, LLC, IPR2025-00559 (Paper 37), written by Judge Grossman, holding that Anthony had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 7,207,181 are not patentable (IPR2025-00559, Paper 37, at 1, 53). On September 30, 2026, the same panel, again through Judge Grossman, issued the final written decision in IPR2025-00636 (Paper 34), holding claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 7,421,847 not patentable (IPR2025-00636, Paper 34, at 1, 57). Each decision describes the patent under review as owned by ControlTec, LLC (Paper 37, at 2; Paper 34, at 2).

The patents

Both patents are titled Refrigeration Unit Condensation Prevention, and the '847 patent issued from a division of the application that became the '181 patent (Paper 34, at 5). As the Board describes them, the patents address frame and door heaters on refrigerated display cases: a controller turns the heaters on when the monitored frame or door temperature drops below a set point above a dew point derived from ambient temperature and relative humidity, and turns them off at a second set point above the dew point to save energy (Paper 37, at 4-5; Paper 34, at 5, 9). The '181 patent claims condensation control apparatus and systems, and the '847 patent claims methods; claims 1, 8 and 14 are the independent claims of each (Paper 37, at 8; Paper 34, at 10). The '847 decision treats the method claims as substantially similar to the apparatus and system claims of the '181 patent (Paper 34, at 5).

How the cases reached trial

On July 16, 2025, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart issued one decision in both proceedings denying ControlTec's request for discretionary denial and referring the petitions to the Board (IPR2025-00636, Paper 9, at 1-3). The decision found that Anthony had provided persuasive reasoning, supported by evidence, that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability during examination by overlooking the teachings of U.S. Patent 7,137,262, so that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. 325(d) was not appropriate, even though the patents had been in force for about eighteen and seventeen years (id. at 2).

On September 30, 2025, a panel of Judges Daniels, Grossman and Sean P. O'Hanlon instituted review of claims 1-20 of the '847 patent on every ground in the petition, after finding a reasonable likelihood that Anthony would prevail at least as to independent claim 8 over the '262 patent alone; the panel did not reach the other grounds at that stage (IPR2025-00636, Paper 10, at 1, 26, 29-30). On November 5, 2025, Director John A. Squires denied a request for Director Review of that institution decision (IPR2025-00636, Paper 14, at 2). According to the '181 decision, the Board also instituted review of all challenged claims on all grounds in IPR2025-00559 (Paper 13 in that proceeding), and ControlTec's request for Director Review there was denied (Paper 19) (Paper 37, at 3). Oral hearings were held June 3, 2026 in IPR2025-00559 and July 16, 2026 in IPR2025-00636 (Paper 37, at 3; Paper 34, at 4).

The grounds

In IPR2025-00559, Anthony asserted five obviousness grounds under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a): claims 1, 2 and 14-18 over the '262 patent; claims 1-7 and 14-18 over the '262 patent, U.S. Patent 5,778,689 and U.S. Patent 6,422,062; claims 17-20 over those three patents plus U.S. Patent 6,502,409; claims 1-6 over the '262 and '689 patents and U.S. Patent 5,396,796; and claims 8-13 over the '262, '689 and '409 patents (Paper 37, at 10). The Board held every challenged claim unpatentable under every ground (id. at 53-54).

In IPR2025-00636, Anthony asserted four: claims 8-12 over the '262 patent; claims 1-20 over the '262 patent and U.S. Patent 7,240,501; claims 3, 9, 10 and 19 over those two patents plus the '062 patent; and claims 2, 11-13 and 17 over the '262, '501 and '409 patents (Paper 34, at 11). Again the Board held every challenged claim unpatentable under every ground (id. at 56-57).

The Board's reasoning

In both cases the Board adopted Anthony's definition of the person of ordinary skill: a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering or a comparable field and at least three to five years of professional experience with heating, ventilating, air conditioning and refrigeration systems. It rejected ControlTec's proposal to require experience working with refrigerated display cases, reasoning that the technology the patents disclose and claim is condensation control and energy conservation, and that an engineer whose display case experience was in lighting would meet ControlTec's definition without knowing condensation control (Paper 37, at 16-18; Paper 34, at 15-20). On that basis it rejected ControlTec's argument that Anthony's technical expert was not qualified to testify (Paper 37, at 18; Paper 34, at 20).

The Board found that the '262 patent, which describes supplemental heat for the sealing area of a refrigerator or freezer door, controlled by surface temperature, ambient temperature and relative humidity readings, discloses both activating and deactivating the heat (Paper 37, at 31-34; Paper 34, at 27-31). It rejected ControlTec's argument that the reference does not describe a display case because it shows no glass door, noting that the claims do not require a glass door (Paper 37, at 27-28). In the '847 case it also rejected ControlTec's argument that the '262 patent lacks the claimed control logic because it turns the heat off when surface and ambient temperatures are equal rather than by reference to the dew point, finding that the reference deactivates its system when condensation is no longer a risk (Paper 34, at 27, 31).

The Board held that the '062 patent, which describes an automotive windshield fog sensor, is analogous art because it and the challenged patents share the purpose and problem of controlling condensation (Paper 37, at 42-46; Paper 34, at 37-44), and in the '181 case it held the '796 patent, which describes a humidity meter, analogous art as reasonably pertinent to the problem of housing a sensor package (Paper 37, at 50-51). In the '847 case it rejected ControlTec's reading of the '501 patent as limited to time-based heater scheduling, pointing to that patent's separate sensor-based embodiment and its stated object of heating doors where condensation is anticipated (Paper 34, at 33-35), and accepted Anthony's reliance on the '409 patent for wireless communication among display cases (id. at 44-46).

In the '847 case ControlTec argued commercial success, copying, industry praise and long-felt need, and in the '181 case industry adoption, copying and long-felt need. In both cases the Board found no nexus between the claims and the evidence offered. In the '181 case it said ControlTec cited no evidence of objective indicia, and that its sur-reply reference to a co-development agreement between the parties more than twenty years earlier cited no evidence (Paper 37, at 34-37). In the '847 case it found that the co-development agreement does not mention the patent and is not a license of the kind the Federal Circuit addressed in Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., and that the Anthony installation instructions ControlTec cited as evidence of copying describe a single factory set point 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit above the dew point rather than the dual set-point strategy ControlTec asserted (Paper 34, at 47-56).

The notices of appeal

Both notices were filed October 26, 2026. In IPR2025-00559, ControlTec, LLC, as patent owner, gives notice that it appeals to the Federal Circuit from the final written decision entered August 25, 2026 (Paper 37) and from all underlying and related orders, decisions, rulings and opinions regarding the '181 patent, and lists as expected issues the Board's determination that claims 1-20 are unpatentable and all other issues decided against it (IPR2025-00559, Paper 38, at 1). The notice in IPR2025-00636 says the same as to the final written decision entered September 30, 2026 (Paper 34) and the '847 patent (IPR2025-00636, Paper 35, at 1). Each notice states that a copy and the docketing fees were being filed with the Federal Circuit clerk's office through CM/ECF (Paper 38, at 1; Paper 35, at 1).

The Delaware case

Both decisions identify ControlTec, LLC v. Anthony, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00883 (D. Del.), as involving the patent under review and describe it as stayed pending the inter partes review (Paper 37, at 4; Paper 34, at 4). The docket shows an oral order staying the case on November 6, 2024, status reports on February 27, 2025, September 8, 2025 and October 14, 2026 (ECF 21, 22 and 24), and oral orders on September 9, 2025 and October 15, 2026. The decisions quote the September 9, 2025 order as stating that the case remains stayed and directing a joint status report within fourteen days after the Board's final written decision in each review (Paper 37, at 4 n.1; Paper 34, at 4 n.1).

What to watch next

Watch for the Federal Circuit docket numbers and a briefing schedule in the two appeals, and for the next order in the Delaware case. The appeals can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.