DCT
1:25-cv-00131
Inpres Inc v. Alltrista Plastics LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Inpres, Inc. (Illinois) and TWM IP LLC (Illinois)
- Defendant: Alltrista Plastics LLC (Indiana)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00131, S.D. Ind., 01/21/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of Indiana because the Defendant is incorporated in the district, maintains a regular and established place of business there, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s lip balm dispensers infringe a patent related to a mechanical locking feature that prevents unintentional product advancement.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical dispensers for consumer goods like lip balms, where product integrity and precise dispensing are important for both manufacturing and consumer use.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior commercial relationship where Defendant purchased 2.1 million units of Plaintiff's patented dispenser, received confidential engineering drawings under a proprietary notice, and later returned the products. The complaint also alleges that Defendant subsequently hired the first-named inventor of the patent-in-suit for engineering services before launching the accused products.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-06-26 | Priority Date for ’460 Patent |
| c. 2015-03 | First-named inventor of '460 Patent leaves employment with Inpres |
| 2017-03-07 | U.S. Patent No. 9,585,460 Issues |
| c. 2018-06 | Alltrista purchases 2.1 million patented dispensers from Inpres |
| c. 2018-08 | Alltrista returns dispensers to Inpres |
| Post-2018-08 | Alltrista allegedly begins manufacturing accused lip balm dispensers |
| 2025-01-21 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,585,460 - "Screw-Based Dispenser Having Locking Elevator and Elevator Retention Mechanism"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,585,460, “Screw-Based Dispenser Having Locking Elevator and Elevator Retention Mechanism,” issued March 7, 2017.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a problem in screw-based dispensers, known as "up-elevator," where the movable platform (the elevator) that pushes the product can spontaneously advance during transport before the dispenser is filled. This can result in under-filled products and manufacturing waste (Compl. ¶14; ’460 Patent, col. 1:38-55).
- The Patented Solution: The invention introduces an "elevator locking mechanism" to prevent this unintended movement. The mechanism consists of a corresponding convex protrusion on the dispenser's central screw and a concave depression on the elevator. These features engage to provide just enough resistance to prevent spontaneous movement, but can be easily overcome by the user intentionally turning the dispenser's base to advance the product (’460 Patent, col. 2:51-68, Fig. 6).
- Technical Importance: This solution provides a simple, integrated mechanical means to improve manufacturing reliability for high-volume consumer products without complicating the end-user experience or requiring complex parts (’460 Patent, col. 2:51-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
- Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
- A screw-based dispenser comprising: a cylindrical outer casing;
- a threaded screw connected to a base;
- a substantially cylindrical movable elevator with a central opening for the screw and an engagement wall;
- an elevator locking mechanism disposed a predetermined distance from the first end of the threaded screw;
- the locking mechanism provides resistance to spontaneous axial movement of the elevator;
- the locking mechanism comprises a convex protrusion on the threaded screw; and
- the locking mechanism comprises a concave depression in the engagement wall of the movable elevator.
- The complaint’s prayer for relief seeks judgment for infringement of "one or more claims," suggesting the right to assert additional claims is reserved (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶B).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant Alltrista’s own line of lip balm dispensers (Compl. ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Alltrista began manufacturing its own lip balm dispensers which incorporate the patented "elevator retention mechanism" after having been a customer of Plaintiff and having received Plaintiff's confidential technical drawings (Compl. ¶18, ¶20). The accused products are alleged to be screw-based dispensers that use a movable elevator to propel a product, directly competing with Plaintiff's dispensers in the same market segment (Compl. ¶13, ¶23).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint includes a side-by-side visual comparison, with annotations, of a figure from the ’460 Patent and a photograph of the accused Alltrista Lip Balm Dispenser, intended to show the correspondence between the patented and accused mechanisms (Compl. p. 5).
’460 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a screw-based dispenser comprising: a cylindrical outer casing; a threaded screw ... a ... movable elevator | Alltrista's product is a screw-based dispenser with a cylindrical outer casing, a threaded screw, and a movable elevator. | ¶23 | col. 6:36-40 |
| an elevator locking mechanism ... providing resistance to spontaneous axial movement of the elevator | The accused dispenser has a locking mechanism that prevents the elevator from advancing prematurely. | ¶23 | col. 6:41-45 |
| wherein the elevator locking mechanism comprises a convex protrusion disposed on the threaded screw | The accused dispenser's locking mechanism includes a convex protrusion on its threaded screw. | ¶23 | col. 6:49-51 |
| and comprises a concave depression disposed in the engagement wall of the movable elevator | The accused dispenser's locking mechanism includes a concave depression in the movable elevator. | ¶23 | col. 6:51-53 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the scope of the term "elevator locking mechanism." The parties may dispute what level of "resistance" is required to meet this limitation, and whether the accused product's features are intended for "locking" as described in the patent or for some other purpose.
- Technical Questions: While the complaint alleges a direct structural correspondence, a technical question may arise as to whether the interaction between the protrusion and depression in the accused product functions in the same way to prevent "spontaneous axial movement" as claimed. The defense may argue for a different principle of operation or a functional mismatch.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "elevator locking mechanism"
- Context and Importance: This term is the core of the asserted claim and defines the point of novelty. Its construction will likely determine infringement, as the dispute will center on whether the accused product's features constitute such a "mechanism" within the meaning of the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function broadly as "provid[ing] resistance to spontaneous axial movement of the elevator" (’460 Patent, col. 3:4-6). Plaintiff may argue this covers any structure that achieves this functional result.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently links the mechanism to the specific structure of an interacting "convex protrusion" and "concave depression" (’460 Patent, col. 2:54-57). Defendant may argue the term is limited to the specific embodiment shown in Figure 6, which illustrates a "shallow" profile designed to be overcome with "relatively little force" (’460 Patent, col. 5:58-60).
The Term: "spontaneous axial movement"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the problem the invention purports to solve. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will be critical to proving that the accused "locking mechanism" performs the claimed function. The dispute may turn on whether the movement prevented by the accused device is "spontaneous" (e.g., from jostling during transport, as described in the patent) or arises from other forces.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue the term covers any unintended movement of the elevator up the screw, regardless of cause.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant could argue the term is limited by the patent's background section, which specifically describes the problem as occurring "during transportation" of empty dispensers, a phenomenon referred to as "up-elevator" (’460 Patent, col. 1:38-50).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations or counts for indirect infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was willful. This allegation is supported by claims that Defendant: (1) purchased 2.1 million units of the patented product, providing actual notice of the technology (Compl. ¶17); (2) was provided with confidential engineering drawings and material specifications for the patented product (Compl. ¶18); and (3) engaged the services of the patent's first-named inventor after he left Plaintiff's employment (Compl. ¶21).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "elevator locking mechanism", as defined by its function of providing "resistance to spontaneous axial movement," be met by the accused device, or will the defense successfully argue for a narrower construction tied to the specific "shallow" embodiment disclosed for preventing "up-elevator" during pre-fill transport?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of willfulness: given the allegations of a prior commercial relationship, access to confidential drawings, and the hiring of the lead inventor, the court will have to determine whether Alltrista's alleged conduct rose to the level of egregious behavior required for a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages.