DCT
1:25-cv-01219
Mpact Beverage Solutions LLC v. BuzzBallz LLC
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Mpact Beverage Solutions, LLC (Texas) and Stacked Wines, LLC (California)
- Defendant: BuzzBallz, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: ArentFox Schiff LLP; Bayard, P.A.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01219, D. Del., 11/06/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant BuzzBallz being incorporated and subject to personal jurisdiction in Delaware.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their stackable container, used for ready-to-drink cocktails, does not infringe Defendant's design patent for a beverage container.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental appearance of containers within the highly competitive ready-to-drink (RTD) alcoholic beverage market, where packaging design is a key brand differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: This action was initiated after Plaintiffs received a cease-and-desist letter from Defendant on September 19, 2025, alleging infringement. The complaint notes Defendant's history of enforcing related patents against other competitors and mentions that Defendant filed its own infringement suit against Plaintiff Mpact in the Southern District of Texas on October 22, 2025, several weeks after the original complaint in this action was filed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2025-01-16 | U.S. Design Patent No. D1,080,384 application filed |
| 2025-06-24 | U.S. Design Patent No. D1,080,384 issues |
| 2025-09-19 | Defendant sends cease-and-desist letter to Plaintiff Mpact |
| Fall 2025 | Plaintiff Mpact begins fulfilling orders for accused MAX products |
| 2025-10-14 | Plaintiff Mpact attends NACS trade show |
| 2025-10-22 | Defendant files patent infringement suit against Mpact in S.D. Tex. |
| 2025-11-06 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,080,384 - “Beverage Container”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,080,384, titled “Beverage Container,” issued June 24, 2025.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the D1,080,384 patent does not contain a background section describing a technical problem; its purpose is to protect the novel, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian features (’384 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a beverage container depicted in its figures (’384 Patent, Claim). The claimed design consists of the features shown in solid lines, which include a generally spherical body, a short neck with an angular and concave profile, and a base with a gradually sloped, curved profile (’384 Patent, Figs. 1-2; Description). The broken lines in the figures, such as the container's opening and internal base details, form no part of the claimed design (’384 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: In the crowded RTD beverage market, a distinctive container design can serve as a significant source of brand identity and consumer appeal, differentiating a product on retail shelves (Compl. ¶¶15, 59).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint focuses on the patent’s sole claim, which covers the ornamental design as a whole.
- The essential ornamental features of the claimed design, as shown in the solid-line drawings, are:
- A neck portion with an angular, concave profile.
- A shoulder portion transitioning from the neck to a spherical body.
- A base portion with a gradually sloped, curved profile.
- An overall visual impression of a nearly spherical container with a narrow base relative to its mouth.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Container" is used for Plaintiff Mpact's "MAX High ABV Ready-To-Drink Cocktail" products (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Container is a 187 mL vessel made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic, designed to emulate the look of a premium, stemless wine glass (Compl. ¶¶23, 59). Its key functional feature is its stackability, achieved by designing the base of one container to interlock with the top of another (Compl. ¶23). This feature allows a four-pack to have dimensions similar to a standard 750 mL bottle for efficient shipping and retail display (Compl. ¶27).
- The complaint alleges the container's premium design is integral to the marketing of the MAX product line, which is positioned as a high-quality, high-alcohol-by-volume cocktail (Compl. ¶¶59, 61). An advertisement depicts four of the accused containers stacked vertically to emphasize this feature. (Compl. p. 22).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
This declaratory judgment action argues for non-infringement. The following table summarizes Plaintiffs' contentions regarding the key visual differences between the patented design and the Accused Container.
'384 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (Feature of Patented Design) | Accused Container Feature (as alleged by Plaintiff) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An angular, concave neck design | A perpendicular neck with a linear profile and no concave curvature | ¶75 | Fig. 1 |
| A gradually sloping base design with a curved profile | A sharply cornered base design with a flat bottom and near-vertical lower sidewalls | ¶79 | Fig. 1 |
| A base that is significantly narrower than the mouth of the container | A base that is significantly wider than the mouth of the container, creating a "triangular form factor" | ¶¶81-82 | Fig. 1 |
| Overall visual impression of a nearly spherical container | Overall visual impression of a tapered, stemless glass designed for stacking | ¶82 | Fig. 1 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
The central dispute is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the Accused Container's design is substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’384 Patent. The complaint focuses the court's attention on several specific visual distinctions.- Scope Questions: The complaint introduces numerous prior art container designs to argue that the field is "crowded," which may suggest that the scope of the ’384 Patent is narrow and limited to its precise ornamental features (Compl. ¶¶85, 87). A key question will be whether the asserted prior art is close enough to the patented design to magnify the importance of the differences between the patented design and the accused product.
- Visual Questions: The complaint presents side-by-side visual comparisons to frame key questions for the court. A comparison of the neck profiles raises the question of whether the Accused Container's straight, perpendicular neck creates a different visual impression than the patented design's curved, inwardly-angled neck (Compl. p. 29). A comparison of the bases asks whether the Accused Container's functionally-driven wide, flat base is visually distinct from the patented design's narrow, rounded base (Compl. p. 32). Finally, a comparison of the overall shapes highlights the different proportions, asking whether the Accused Container's "triangular" profile differs from the patented design's more "spherical" profile (Compl. p. 34).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, claim construction involves describing the claimed design as shown in the figures. The dispute will likely focus on the visual significance of certain features, which Plaintiffs describe using the following terms.
The Term: "angular concave neck" (Compl. ¶71)
Context and Importance: This feature is presented as the most prominent difference between the two designs. Practitioners may focus on this term because Plaintiffs allege their container has a "perpendicular neck" (Compl. ¶75), and whether this distinction creates a different overall visual impression is central to their non-infringement argument.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term simply describes a neck feature that is not perfectly vertical, and any non-trivial angle or curve falls within the general concept.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's Figure 1 depicts a neck with a distinct inward angle and a continuous, smooth concave curve from the lip to the shoulder (’384 Patent, Fig. 1). Plaintiffs' annotated diagrams emphasize this specific geometry as a defining characteristic of the claimed design (Compl. pp. 26-27).
The Term: "gradually sloping base" (Compl. ¶73)
Context and Importance: This feature is another primary point of alleged visual difference, contrasting with what Plaintiffs describe as the Accused Container's "sharply cornered base" (Compl. ¶79). The base design is directly related to the Accused Container's core functional feature of stackability.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this term covers any base that is not perfectly flat and angular, encompassing a range of curved or rounded bottom profiles.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 of the patent shows a smooth, continuous curve forming the transition from the vertical sidewall to the bottom of the container (’384 Patent, Fig. 1). Plaintiffs' diagrams highlight this curvature as a key element of the claimed aesthetic (Compl. p. 28).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: Plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration that they do not infringe directly, contributorily, or by inducement (Compl. ¶104; Prayer for Relief ¶1). The complaint does not, however, provide specific facts regarding Defendant's potential theories of indirect infringement for analysis.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations related to willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of overall visual impression: Will an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, find the accused and patented designs to be substantially the same, despite the alleged differences in the neck profile, base shape, and overall proportions?
- A key contextual question will be the impact of prior art: Does the prior art presented by Plaintiffs so crowd the field of spherical beverage container designs that the differences between the accused product and the patented design, which might otherwise seem minor, become legally significant and dispositive of non-infringement?
- A final question will be one of feature decomposition: To what extent can the design be analyzed by its component parts (neck, base, body), versus the legal requirement to evaluate the design as an integrated whole? The case may turn on whether the alleged differences in individual features are sufficient to alter the overall ornamental appearance.