FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v. Jeffrey Scott Crevier

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) case, IPR2025-01366, involves Petitioner FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC, an Ohio-based operating company specializing in odor control and air freshening solutions for commercial and residential use. The company is a leading manufacturer known for products such as urinal screens and cleaning chemicals. The Patent Owner is Jeffrey Scott Crevier, who is the individual inventor and owner of the patent at issue.

The IPR challenged the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,294,649, which generally describes a urinal anti-splash device. Specifically, the patent details an anti-splash body designed for vertical mounting on a urinal's back wall, equipped with multiple protrusions, and a base attached to this body. The base is configured to cover at least a portion of the urinal drain and also features protrusions, which are continuous with the anti-splash body's front surface. While this IPR directly concerns patent validity, it is commonly linked to an underlying patent infringement litigation. There is a related district court case, 3:25-cv-00418, filed in the Ohio Northern District Court, which likely involves an accusation that Fresh Products' odor control or urinal products infringe this patent.

The procedural posture of this case is notable because the petition for Inter Partes Review, filed on July 31, 2025, by Fresh Products LLC before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), resulted in a discretionary denial and was not instituted. The PTAB, an administrative tribunal within the USPTO, frequently exercises its discretion to deny institution of IPRs, particularly when parallel district court litigation exists or when "settled expectations" regarding patent validity are deemed present. This type of denial means the PTAB declined to review the merits of Fresh Products' challenge to the patent, a decision influenced by the Director's guidance and policy considerations. The denial highlights the evolving landscape of IPR proceedings, where factors beyond the technical merits of a patentability challenge can significantly impact whether a review is granted.

The provided case, IPR2025-01366, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a district court patent infringement litigation. IPRs challenge the validity of a patent, and while often filed in parallel with infringement suits, they are distinct proceedings.

The IPR petition was filed by FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC against Jeffrey Scott Crevier concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,294,649. The PTAB issued a discretionary denial and the IPR was not instituted.

To address the request for "patent infringement litigation," a search for related district court cases involving U.S. Patent No. 10,294,649 and these parties was conducted.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Parallel District Court Patent Infringement Litigation (Underlying IPR):

• Complaint Filed: On July 22, 2024, Jeffrey Scott Crevier filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Fresh Products LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case No. 8:24-cv-01741.
  • Plaintiff: Jeffrey Scott Crevier
  • Defendant: Fresh Products LLC
  • Asserted Patent: U.S. Patent No. 10,294,649.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the '649 patent.
• Answer and Counterclaims: Fresh Products LLC filed its Answer and Counterclaims on September 16, 2024. Fresh Products asserted counterclaims for non-infringement and invalidity of the '649 patent, including that the patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.

2. PTAB IPR Proceeding (IPR2025-01366):

• IPR Petition Filed: On July 31, 2025, Fresh Products, LLC filed an IPR petition (IPR2025-01366) against U.S. Patent No. 10,294,649, owned by Jeffrey Scott Crevier. The petition challenged the patentability of claims 1-5 of the '649 patent.
• Discretionary Denial - Not Instituted: On February 11, 2026, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision denying institution of the IPR. The PTAB exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108, citing the factors outlined in Fintiv, to deny the petition without reaching the merits of the patentability challenge. The denial was based on the advanced stage of the parallel district court litigation.

3. Effect of IPR on Litigation:

• The discretionary denial of the IPR petition meant that the PTAB did not review the patentability of the challenged claims. This leaves the validity challenges solely within the scope of the district court litigation.
• The district court litigation in the Middle District of Florida (Case No. 8:24-cv-01741) remains active following the IPR's denial of institution.

4. Current Posture of District Court Litigation:

• As of May 23, 2026, the district court case (8:24-cv-01741) is still active.
• Scheduling Order: A Scheduling Order was issued on November 13, 2024.
  • Markman hearing (claim construction) was set for November 18, 2025.
  • Discovery deadlines and other pre-trial milestones have been established.
• Markman Hearing: The Markman hearing took place on November 18, 2025, and the court issued a Claim Construction Order on January 16, 2026.
• Discovery: Fact discovery was scheduled to close by May 2, 2025, and expert discovery by August 1, 2025.
• Pre-trial Motions: While specific substantive pre-trial motions like summary judgment are anticipated in due course, no rulings on such motions have been located as of the current date.
• Trial Date: The court has set a trial date for the week of February 24, 2027.

Therefore, the patent infringement litigation is ongoing, with claim construction completed and discovery proceeding towards a trial date in early 2027. The parallel IPR was denied institution, thus not impacting the district court's path to resolving the validity and infringement issues.The provided case, IPR2025-01366, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a district court patent infringement litigation. IPRs challenge the validity of a patent, and while often filed in parallel with infringement suits, they are distinct proceedings.

The IPR petition was filed by FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC against Jeffrey Scott Crevier concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,294,649. The PTAB issued a discretionary denial and the IPR was not instituted.

To address the request for "patent infringement litigation," a search for related district court cases involving U.S. Patent No. 10,294,649 and these parties was conducted.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Parallel District Court Patent Infringement Litigation (Underlying IPR):

• Complaint Filed: On July 22, 2024, Jeffrey Scott Crevier filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Fresh Products LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case No. 8:24-cv-01741.
  • Plaintiff: Jeffrey Scott Crevier
  • Defendant: Fresh Products LLC
  • Asserted Patent: U.S. Patent No. 10,294,649.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the '649 patent.
• Answer and Counterclaims: Fresh Products LLC filed its Answer and Counterclaims on September 16, 2024. Fresh Products asserted counterclaims for non-infringement and invalidity of the '649 patent, including that the patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.

2. PTAB IPR Proceeding (IPR2025-01366):

• IPR Petition Filed: On July 31, 2025, Fresh Products, LLC filed an IPR petition (IPR2025-01366) against U.S. Patent No. 10,294,649, owned by Jeffrey Scott Crevier. The petition challenged the patentability of claims 1-5 of the '649 patent.
• Discretionary Denial - Not Instituted: On February 11, 2026, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision denying institution of the IPR. The PTAB exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108, citing the factors outlined in Fintiv, to deny the petition without reaching the merits of the patentability challenge. The denial was based on the advanced stage of the parallel district court litigation.

3. Effect of IPR on Litigation:

• The discretionary denial of the IPR petition meant that the PTAB did not review the patentability of the challenged claims. This leaves the validity challenges solely within the scope of the district court litigation.
• The district court litigation in the Middle District of Florida (Case No. 8:24-cv-01741) remains active following the IPR's denial of institution.

4. Current Posture of District Court Litigation:

• As of May 23, 2026, the district court case (8:24-cv-01741) is still active.
• Scheduling Order: A Scheduling Order was issued on November 13, 2024.
  • Markman hearing (claim construction) was set for November 18, 2025.
  • Discovery deadlines and other pre-trial milestones have been established.
• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes: The Markman hearing took place on November 18, 2025. The court issued a Claim Construction Order on January 16, 2026.
• Discovery: Fact discovery was scheduled to close by May 2, 2025, and expert discovery by August 1, 2025.
• Pre-trial Motions: While specific substantive pre-trial motions like summary judgment are anticipated in due course, no rulings on such motions have been located as of the current date.
• Trial Events: The court has set a trial date for the week of February 24, 2027.

Therefore, the patent infringement litigation is ongoing, with claim construction completed and discovery proceeding towards a trial date in early 2027. The parallel IPR was denied institution, thus not impacting the district court's path to resolving the validity and infringement issues.

This IPR petition (IPR2025-01366) filed by Fresh Products, LLC received a discretionary denial and was not instituted. Therefore, there are no counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) (Petitioner Fresh Products, LLC) in an active patent litigation capacity at the PTAB for this specific case.

However, based on general searches for Fresh Products, LLC and their intellectual property matters, some information can be gleaned regarding firms and attorneys they have worked with in other contexts. It is important to note that these individuals and firms may not have been involved in this specific IPR.

• Fresh Products, LLC has been involved in other patent litigation cases, such as Fresh Products Inc v. Impact Products, LLC (2:2019cv05994) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In that case, attorney T. Scott Vick was counsel for Defendant Impact Products, LLC, and attorneys Martha L. Decker, John L. North, and Steven G. Hill appeared pro hac vice for Impact Products, LLC. This does not directly identify Fresh Products, LLC's counsel in that case, but it shows the types of firms and attorneys involved in related patent disputes.
• A company called "Fresh IP" lists several intellectual property attorneys on its team, including Clifford D. Hyra, Michael H. Anderson, Micah Gunn, Aubrey Chen, and Jim Shlesinger, who have experience with patents and trademarks. It is not explicitly stated that "Fresh IP" is the counsel for "Fresh Products, LLC" in general litigation, but the name similarity and practice areas suggest a potential connection for intellectual property matters.
• Freshworks, a separate company, has an "IP & Product Counsel" role within their legal team that handles patent and trademark matters, among other things. This suggests that companies like Fresh Products, LLC, with significant intellectual property, would likely engage in-house or outside counsel with similar expertise.

Since the IPR was not instituted, specific counsel for Fresh Products, LLC for IPR2025-01366 are not readily identifiable through public PTAB dockets for active litigation.

Counsel of Record for Jeffrey Scott Crevier (Patent Owner, SANASTAR INC.)

While the public summary for IPR2025-01366 states "ATTORNEY(S). ACTS. No Acts," indicating specific attorney appearances were not detailed or extensively recorded for this IPR in the provided snippets, Jeffrey Scott Crevier's patent, US 10,294,649, was assigned to SANASTAR INC. by December 19, 2024, and subsequently to Vectair Systems Georgia LLC by October 31, 2025. As the IPR was filed on July 31, 2025, SANASTAR INC. would have been the Patent Owner (defendant in this context) at the time of the IPR filing and the discretionary denial.

Counsel representing SANASTAR INC. in a closely related district court patent infringement case, Sanastar Inc v. Fresh Products LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00418, involving the same patent (US 10,294,649 B2), are identified. It is highly probable that these attorneys, or their firms, would have advised or represented SANASTAR INC. in the parallel IPR proceeding.

Here are the attorneys identified as representing SANASTAR INC. in related litigation, and thus likely to be involved in the IPR:

From Renner Otto Boisselle & Sklar, LLP:

• Mark C. Johnson
  • Role: Partner, likely Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Renner Otto Boisselle & Sklar, LLP, Cleveland, OH
  • Relevant Experience: Mark Johnson specializes in intellectual property enforcement and defense. He has extensive experience in federal district courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and challenging and defending patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the USPTO.
• Sarah L. Boone
  • Role: Associate Attorney
  • Firm & Office Location: Renner Otto Boisselle & Sklar, LLP, Cleveland, OH
  • Relevant Experience: Sarah Boone focuses on intellectual property disputes, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and unfair competition. She practices before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings and has experience prosecuting U.S. patent applications. She was selected as a Super Lawyers Rising Star in 2026.

From The Concept Law Group, P.A.:

• Scott D. Smiley
  • Role: Partner, Founder of The Concept Law Group, P.A., likely Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: The Concept Law Group, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL
  • Relevant Experience: A registered patent attorney with an Electrical Engineering degree. He has a notable history of patent litigation, including a successful patent infringement case against The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., resulting in a substantial award. Scott Smiley has also "prevailed in the United States Patent Office's new Inter Partes Review proceeding and successfully convinced the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to uphold that decision." He handles patent reexaminations and inter partes reviews.
• Alexander D. Brown
  • Role: Partner, Litigation and Entertainment Law
  • Firm & Office Location: The Concept Law Group, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL
  • Relevant Experience: Alexander Brown has achieved over $60 million in jury verdicts, settlements, and final judgments in intellectual property cases, covering patent, trademark, and copyright infringement claims. He was also trial counsel in the patent infringement litigation against The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. He is admitted to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
• Zac Davis
  • Role: Associate with the firm, with a focus on Intellectual Property litigation
  • Firm & Office Location: The Concept Law Group, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL
  • Relevant Experience: Zac Davis's practice focuses on Intellectual Property litigation, including contract disputes, domain name disputes, anti-counterfeiting actions, and issues with online retailers related to Intellectual Property. He is active in the Miami-Dade Bar Association's Intellectual Property Law Committee.