1:15-cv-01054
Drink Tanks Corp v. Growlerwerks Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Drink Tanks Corporation (Oregon)
- Defendant: GrowlerWerks, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP; Lando & Anastasi, LLP
- Case Identification: 1:15-cv-01054, D. Del., 11/16/2015
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s pressurized beverage growlers infringe a patent related to systems for storing and dispensing beverages.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns portable, pressurized containers, known as growlers, designed to maintain the carbonation and freshness of beverages like craft beer after transport from a brewery.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit issued approximately one month before the complaint was filed. Subsequent to the complaint, an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding was initiated against the patent (IPR2017-00262). The IPR resulted in the cancellation of all independent claims (1 and 18) and most dependent claims. The survival of a few "orphaned" dependent claims, whose independent claims have been cancelled, presents a significant question regarding the ongoing viability of the case.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-02-18 | Earliest Priority Date for ’670 Patent |
| 2015-10-13 | U.S. Patent No. 9,156,670 Issues |
| 2015-11-16 | Complaint Filed |
| 2016-11-14 | Inter Partes Review (IPR2017-00262) Filed |
| 2020-01-13 | IPR Certificate Issues, Cancelling Claims 1-7, 9-13, 16-19 |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,156,670 - "Systems for Storing Beverages"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,156,670, "Systems for Storing Beverages", issued October 13, 2015.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem that conventional medium-sized beverage containers, or "growlers," are typically unable to maintain the carbonation of beverages like beer, causing the contents to go "flat" if not consumed quickly. (’670 Patent, col. 1:29-33).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system for storing, transporting, and dispensing beverages from a portable container that maintains internal pressure. The system can include a container, a lid, and a closure mechanism, such as wire bails, that creates a pressure-tight seal between the lid and the container rim. (’670 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:34-43). Certain embodiments describe a lid with a "beveled seal" designed to engage with a "non-planar" or arcuate rim of a double-walled vessel to ensure a secure seal. (’670 Patent, col. 2:17-23; Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide consumers with a reusable, portable vessel that preserves the quality and carbonation of draft beverages for an extended period, similar to a mini-keg. (’670 Patent, col. 1:21-33).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’670 Patent without specification (Compl. ¶14). Independent Claim 1 is representative of the core technology.
- Independent Claim 1 recites:
- a container body comprising a vacuum sealed metal vessel having a rim which has a non-planar surface,
- a lid having a threaded portion and a gas inlet valve; and
- an annular elastomeric seal interposed between a bottom surface of the lid and the rim and configured to seal against the non-planar surface of the rim.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the allegation against "one or more claims" implicitly does so.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are beverage growlers sold under the "uKeg 64" and "uKeg 128" brands (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these are "beverage containers, including growlers that embody the technology of the '670 Patent" (Compl. ¶12). It provides no specific technical details regarding the construction, sealing mechanism, or operation of the accused products.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed infringement allegations beyond a general assertion. The following table summarizes the infringement theory for Claim 1 that Plaintiff would need to substantiate.
’670 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a container body comprising a vacuum sealed metal vessel having a rim which has a non-planar surface, | The complaint alleges that the uKeg products are beverage containers embodying the patented technology; to meet this element, the products would need to be constructed from metal with vacuum insulation and a non-flat rim surface for sealing. | ¶12, ¶14 | col. 7:41-43 |
| a lid having a threaded portion and a gas inlet valve; and | To meet this element, the uKeg products would require a lid that is secured to the container via threads and that includes a valve allowing for the introduction of gas to pressurize the contents. | ¶12, ¶14 | col. 7:44 |
| an annular elastomeric seal interposed between a bottom surface of the lid and the rim and configured to seal against the non-planar surface of the rim. | To meet this element, the uKeg products would need to utilize a ring-shaped, flexible seal positioned between the lid and the non-flat rim of the container body to create a pressure-tight seal. | ¶12, ¶14 | col. 7:45-49 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "threaded portion" in Claim 1 reads on the actual closure mechanism of the accused uKeg products. The patent specification heavily details an alternative "over-center" wire bail closure system (’670 Patent, col. 4:28-56), and if the accused products use such a system instead of threads, it may support a non-infringement argument with respect to Claim 1.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide evidence that the accused uKeg products are "vacuum sealed," which is a specific method of construction. The litigation would require factual discovery to determine if the accused products meet this limitation or use an alternative form of insulation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "threaded portion"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement of Claim 1 hinges on the specific mechanism used to secure the lid. If the accused products use a different mechanism, such as the wire bail clamps described extensively elsewhere in the patent, they may not infringe this claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the term does not require a traditional screw-on lid but could encompass any component in the lid assembly that utilizes threads for attachment or tightening, even if it is not the primary closure mechanism. The patent does not provide an explicit definition, potentially leaving the term open to its plain and ordinary meaning.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that in the context of the patent, which also describes non-threaded bail closures (’670 Patent, col. 2:49-58), the choice to explicitly recite "threaded portion" in Claim 1 was a deliberate limitation to a conventional screw-type closure, distinct from the other disclosed embodiments.
The Term: "non-planar surface"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the shape of the container rim required by the claims. The interpretation will determine whether a wide or narrow range of container top designs fall within the patent's scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the rim as being "arcuate in cross-section" or "in the form of a bend" as a result of the double-walled construction, suggesting "non-planar" could broadly cover any such rounded or bent rim. (’670 Patent, col. 2:20; col. 3:63-64).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the term should be limited to the specific rounded profile depicted in the patent's figures, such as Figure 4, arguing that this specific shape is what enables the novel sealing engagement with the "beveled seal" (’670 Patent, col. 5:11-20).
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
The complaint does not allege facts to support willful infringement. The prayer for relief includes a request for a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which relates to attorneys' fees, but does not plead the "egregious" conduct typically associated with a claim for enhanced damages for willfulness under § 284. (Compl. p. 4, ¶F).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Claim Viability: The most significant issue is the impact of the IPR that cancelled all independent claims of the ’670 Patent. A threshold question for the court will be whether the plaintiff can proceed with the few remaining "orphaned" dependent claims, which now lack a valid antecedent independent claim, or if the case is effectively terminated as a result of the IPR.
Structural Infringement: Should any claim be deemed viable, the case will turn on a key evidentiary question of structural correspondence: does the accused uKeg product’s closure system actually employ a "threaded portion" as recited in Claim 1 and its dependents, or does it utilize a non-infringing alternative, such as the bail-clamp mechanism also described in the patent's specification?
Definitional Scope: The dispute may be decided by claim construction. A central question will be whether the term "threaded portion" is interpreted narrowly to mean a conventional screw-on lid, or more broadly to cover other uses of threads in a more complex closure assembly. The court's definition of this term could be dispositive of infringement.