Amcor Rigid Packaging USA LLC v. Graham Packaging Co Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Amcor Rigid Packaging USA, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Graham Packaging Company Inc. (Delaware) and Graham Packaging Company, L.P. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. and Foley & Lardner, LLP
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00790, D. Del., 07/05/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware on the basis that both Defendant entities are organized under the laws of Delaware and are therefore residents of the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s lightweight plastic beverage bottles infringe four patents related to container structures engineered to provide stability and manage vacuum forces, particularly in hot-fill applications.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the design of lightweight plastic containers, such as those made from PET, which face technical challenges in balancing material reduction with the structural integrity required for manufacturing processes like hot-filling and subsequent distribution.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the Asserted Patents during its development of the accused products and, in any event, was provided with notice of infringement by Plaintiff no later than October 20, 2023.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-05-14	’130 Patent Priority Date
2011-08-31	’930, ’357, and ’289 Patent Priority Date
2013-07-30	’130 Patent Issued
2017-07-04	’930 Patent Issued
2020-01-21	’357 Patent Issued
2021-08-17	’289 Patent Issued
2023-10-20	Alleged Notice of Infringement
2024-07-05	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,496,130 - Hot-Fill Container Having Movable Ribs for Accommodating Vacuum Forces, issued July 30, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the need for a plastic container design with a sidewall that can achieve optimal performance in vacuum absorption, top-load strength, and dent resistance, particularly for hot-fill applications where internal vacuum is generated upon cooling (Compl. ¶ 16; ’130 Patent, col. 1:12-21).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a one-piece plastic container featuring a series of horizontal ribs on the sidewall, each with a specific cross-sectional geometry. These ribs define an "acute angle" that is described as "variable" or movable, allowing the ribs to compress slightly to accommodate the vacuum forces generated after hot-filling and capping, thus preventing unwanted deformation of the container body (’130 Patent, col. 2:22-34; col. 9:35-51).
• Technical Importance: This design approach allows for the creation of a lightweight yet structurally robust container capable of withstanding the rigors of the hot-fill process, which is a key sterilization method in the beverage industry (Compl. ¶ 11; ’130 Patent, col. 1:8-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 53).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A one-piece plastic container with a sidewall portion defined by a plurality of horizontal ribs.
  • A cross-section of a rib defined by an upper wall, a lower wall, and an inner curved wall with a specified "innermost radius."
  • The rib transitions to upper and lower lands along specified upper and lower outer radii, where the sum of these radii is between 0.14 and 0.28 inches.
  • The rib defines an "acute angle that is variable according to vacuum forces generated within the container to thereby accommodate the vacuum forces."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶ 53).

U.S. Patent No. 9,694,930 - Lightweight Container Base, issued July 4, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As plastic containers are made lighter to reduce cost and material usage, it becomes increasingly difficult to design a container that can simultaneously resist filling pressures, absorb vacuum pressures, and withstand top-loading forces from stacking (’930 Patent, col. 2:24-28).
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a container base incorporating a plurality of radially extending "straps" in combination with sidewall ribs and a central "pushup portion." This geometry is "configured to place the container in a state of hydraulic charge-up when top load is applied" after filling. This effect leverages the incompressibility of the contained liquid to provide structural resistance against deformation from stacking forces (’930 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:39-44).
• Technical Importance: The "hydraulic charge-up" feature enables lightweight containers to maintain structural integrity during shipping and storage without requiring thicker, heavier walls, offering cost and environmental advantages (Compl. ¶ 11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 64).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A container with a finish, sidewall portion with ribs, a base portion with a central pushup, and a plurality of radially extending straps.
  • The ribs and base portion are "configured to place the container in a state of hydraulic charge-up when top load is applied" after filling.
  • The base defines an "outward strap radius" that decreases under vacuum.
  • The base defines an "inward foot radius" that increases under vacuum.
  • The base defines a "standing base radius" that decreases under vacuum.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶ 64).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,538,357 - Lightweight Container Base, issued January 21, 2020

• Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to the same family of technology as the ’930 patent, focusing on lightweight container stability through base design. The invention describes a container base with ribs and straps "configured to cause the container to cross over from a vacuum phase to a phase of hydraulic charge-up" when a top load is applied. The claims specify a geometric relationship where the "total projected area of the plurality of footed contact surfaces" is at least twice the size of the "total projected area of the plurality of straps" (’357 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-56).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 is asserted, as referenced through the specific allegation of infringement of Claim 2 (Compl. ¶ 75).
• Accused Features: The accused bottles are alleged to infringe by having a base structure with ribs and straps configured to produce the claimed "cross over" from a vacuum to a hydraulic charge-up phase (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 75).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,091,289 - Lightweight Container Base, issued August 17, 2021

• Technology Synopsis: This patent is also part of the "Lightweight Container Base" family. It claims a container with a base and ribs configured to transition from a vacuum to a hydraulic charge-up phase under load. The claims focus on the dynamic behavior of the base structure when subjected to post-fill vacuum, specifying that an "outward strap radius" decreases while an "inward foot radius" increases (’289 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-56).
• Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 86).
• Accused Features: The base design of the accused bottles is alleged to infringe by possessing ribs and straps that exhibit the claimed dynamic responses to vacuum and are configured for hydraulic charge-up (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 86).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are lightweight plastic bottles allegedly manufactured and sold by Graham, including the "Welch's 10 oz Bottle," the "Ocean Spray 10 oz Bottle," and the "7-Eleven Replenish 28 oz Bottle" (collectively, "the Accused Products") (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 41, 43-44).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Products are used for beverages and are marketed by Graham using "lightweighting technology" (Compl. ¶ 35). Plaintiff contends that Graham is a direct competitor and secured supply contracts for these bottles with major beverage companies through a competitive bidding process (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 36-37). The complaint includes a photograph of the Welch's 10 oz Bottle, which depicts a container with prominent horizontal ribs along its sidewall (Compl. p. 11). Another photograph shows the 7-Eleven Replenish 28 oz Bottle, which has visible structural features on its base (Compl. p. 12). Plaintiff alleges that "but-for Graham's infringement," it would have been awarded these supply contracts (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 42).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits F, G, H, I) detailing its infringement contentions, but these exhibits were not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 54, 65, 76, 87). The infringement theory is therefore summarized from the complaint’s narrative allegations.

• ’130 Patent Infringement Allegations
  The complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe at least claim 1 of the ’130 Patent (Compl. ¶ 53). The narrative theory suggests that the accused bottles possess horizontal ribs on their sidewalls that have the specific cross-sectional geometry recited in the claim and are designed to define a variable acute angle to accommodate vacuum forces, a key functional requirement for hot-fill containers (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 18).

• ’930 Patent Infringement Allegations
  The complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe at least claim 1 of the ’930 Patent (Compl. ¶ 64). The infringement theory centers on the base of the accused bottles, which is alleged to contain a plurality of ribs and radially extending straps (Compl. ¶ 21). These structures are alleged to be configured to place the container in a "state of hydraulic charge-up" when a top load is applied and to exhibit the claimed dynamic behaviors under vacuum, such as the decrease of the "outward strap radius" and increase of the "inward foot radius" (Compl. ¶ 23).

Identified Points of Contention:

• Technical Questions: A primary technical question may be whether the structures on the Accused Products actually perform the functions required by the claims. For the ’130 patent, this involves whether the ribs define a "variable" angle that accommodates vacuum. For the ’930 patent family, this concerns whether the base is "configured to place the container in a state of hydraulic charge-up." These functional limitations may suggest a need for testing and expert analysis.
• Scope Questions: The dispute may also turn on questions of claim scope. For the ’130 patent, a question exists as to whether the geometry of the accused ribs meets the precise dimensional limitations of the claim (e.g., the sum of the radii being between 0.14 and 0.28 inches). For the ’930 patent family, the construction of terms like "outward strap radius" and "inward foot radius" and their application to the accused bottle geometry will be central.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term from ’130 Patent, Claim 1: "an acute angle that is variable"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears critical as it defines the dynamic functionality of the claimed ribs, distinguishing them from simple static or decorative elements. The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the angle of the accused ribs can be shown to change in response to vacuum forces.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that the ribs are designed to "compress slightly" which "enables the rib angle A to be reduced," suggesting that any measurable, responsive change in angle could satisfy the limitation (’130 Patent, col. 9:35-51).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a specific example of the angle reducing from 58 degrees to 55 degrees (’130 Patent, col. 9:46-51). An argument could be made that "variable" requires a designed, non-trivial change, not merely incidental flexing inherent in thin plastic.

• Term from ’930 Patent, Claim 1: "configured to place the container in a state of hydraulic charge-up"

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a functional limitation that lies at the core of the asserted invention. Proving infringement requires showing not just the presence of certain structures (ribs, straps), but that they are arranged to achieve this specific technical state.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s summary section broadly describes this state as occurring when "top load is applied to the container after the container is filled," which could suggest applicability to any base that stiffens under load when containing a liquid (’930 Patent, col. 2:55-59).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description links "hydraulic charge-up" to a specific mechanism where "horizontal side ribs collapse upon application of top load, and movement of the base portion is constrained... thereby causing fluid... to reach an incompressible state" (’930 Patent, col. 4:39-44). This may support a narrower construction requiring this specific interaction of collapsing ribs and a constrained base.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Graham actively encourages its customers to use the bottles in a filled capacity (Compl. ¶¶ 59, 70). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that Graham knows the products are especially adapted for infringing the patents and have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶ 60, 71).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Graham had knowledge of the patents "during development of the Accused Products" and was also explicitly notified of infringement by Amcor no later than October 20, 2023, after which it allegedly continued to infringe (Compl. ¶¶ 48-50, 58).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This dispute between direct competitors in the lightweight packaging market is likely to center on the following core questions for the court:

• A central issue will be one of functional performance: Can Plaintiff demonstrate through evidence that the accused bottle structures perform the specific dynamic functions required by the claims—such as the "variable" rib angle of the ’130 patent and the "hydraulic charge-up" state of the ’930 patent family—or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of dimensional and geometric scope: Do the physical structures of the accused bottles meet the precise numeric and geometric limitations recited in the asserted claims, and how will claim terms defining these structures (e.g., "outward strap radius," "innermost radius") be construed and applied to the accused designs?
• A critical factual question for willfulness will be the timing and substance of Defendant’s alleged knowledge: What evidence will emerge regarding Defendant’s awareness of the Asserted Patents during its own product development, and how will that evidence impact the claims for willful infringement and potential enhanced damages?