DCT

1:25-cv-01219

Mpact Beverage Solutions LLC v. BuzzBallz LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01219, D. Del., 10/01/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant BuzzBallz is incorporated and resides in Delaware, and is therefore subject to personal jurisdiction.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their ready-to-drink cocktail containers do not infringe Defendant’s design patent for a beverage container.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of containers in the commercially significant ready-to-drink alcoholic beverage market, where distinctive packaging serves as a key product differentiator.
  • Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by a demand letter from Defendant BuzzBallz, sent on September 19, 2025, accusing Plaintiffs of infringement and demanding they cease and desist. The complaint notes that BuzzBallz has a history of enforcing its patent portfolio against competitors.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-04-19 ’384 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2023-09-15 BuzzBallz files first-mentioned related litigation
2025-06-24 ’384 Patent - Issue Date
2025-09-19 BuzzBallz sends demand letter to Plaintiff MPact
2025-10-01 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,080,384 - “Beverage Container”

Issued June 24, 2025

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not address technical problems; they protect the novel, non-obvious, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture (’384 Patent, Claim). The purpose is to provide a unique and visually distinct product appearance.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a beverage container as depicted in its figures (’384 Patent, Claim). The design features a generally spherical or bulbous body that tapers toward a flat base and rises to a short, cylindrical neck (’384 Patent, FIG. 1). A notable feature is the molded, six-lobed floral or star-like pattern on the container's bottom surface (’384 Patent, FIG. 2). The design explicitly disclaims the top rim of the container and certain circular elements on the base, which are shown in broken lines and described as forming "no part of the claimed design" (’384 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: In the competitive beverage sector, a container's unique shape can serve as a significant source of brand identification and market differentiation, which the complaint suggests is the case here through its recitation of Defendant’s enforcement history (Compl. ¶3).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for a beverage container as shown and described" (’384 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's drawings, which depict the following essential ornamental elements:
    • A container with a largely spherical main body.
    • A short, cylindrical neck portion above the spherical body.
    • A recessed bottom surface featuring a six-lobed pattern.
  • The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement of "any claim" of the patent (Prayer for Relief ¶1).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "MPact MAX High ABV Ready-To-Drink Cocktails" containers (the "Accused Containers") (Compl. ¶2, ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint identifies the Accused Containers as packaging for ready-to-drink cocktails but does not provide specific details regarding their design, materials, or ornamental features (Compl. ¶15).
  • The dispute arises from Defendant's allegation, conveyed via a demand letter, that the design of the Accused Containers infringes the ’384 Patent (Compl. ¶2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or provide sufficient detail to construct one, as it is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement and the defendant's infringement contentions (attached as Exhibit 2 to the complaint) were not included in the provided filing. The core of the dispute, as framed by the complaint, is Plaintiffs' contention that the Accused Containers do not infringe the ’384 Patent's claimed design, contrary to Defendant's allegations (Compl. ¶4, ¶6). The legal test for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the overall visual impression of the Accused Containers is substantially the same as the claimed design. The analysis must properly exclude from consideration the container elements shown in broken lines in the patent figures—namely the top rim and portions of the base—which are explicitly disclaimed from the patented design (’384 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of technical or design mismatches. The dispute will turn on a visual comparison between the Accused Containers and the ornamental features claimed in the ’384 Patent, as depicted in solid lines in Figures 1 and 2.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings. Formal claim construction is less common than in utility patent cases, but disputes can arise over the scope of the claimed design.

  • The Term: The scope of the claimed "ornamental design ... as shown and described."
  • Context and Importance: The precise scope of what is protected is critical. The infringement analysis must compare the accused product only to the features shown in solid lines in the patent's figures. Practitioners may focus on this issue because any perceived similarity based on the unclaimed features (the top rim or parts of the base shown in broken lines) is legally irrelevant to the infringement inquiry.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for broader scope might emphasize the overall "visual impression" of the design, focusing on the distinctive bulbous shape of the container body as the dominant feature that should be given the most weight by an ordinary observer (’384 Patent, FIG. 1).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for narrower scope will point to the explicit disclaimer in the patent's description: "The broken lines in FIGS. 1 and 2 show portions of the beverage container that form no part of the claimed design" (’384 Patent, p. 3). This language definitively limits the claimed design to the specific combination of the spherical body, neck, and the particular six-lobed bottom pattern shown in solid lines.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

Plaintiffs seek a declaration that they do not contributorily infringe or induce infringement of the ’384 Patent (Prayer for Relief ¶1). However, the complaint provides no specific facts regarding the basis for Defendant's potential allegations of indirect infringement, stating only a general denial of any such activity (Compl. ¶16).

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

The resolution of this declaratory judgment action will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:

  1. A Question of Visual Deception: Is the ornamental design of the Plaintiffs' "MPact MAX" container "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’384 Patent? The determination will hinge on whether an ordinary observer, giving proper attention to the similarities and differences between the designs, would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design.
  2. A Question of Claim Scope: In performing the visual comparison, how will the fact-finder properly filter out the unclaimed elements depicted in broken lines in the patent's drawings? The case may turn on whether any similarities between the products are attributable to the claimed ornamental features (the solid lines) or the disclaimed, functional, or common elements (the broken lines).