1:11-cv-11941
Keurig Inc v. JBR Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Keurig, Incorporated (Delaware)
- Defendant: JBR, Inc., d/b/a Rogers Family Company (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:11-cv-11941, D. Mass., 11/02/2011
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper in the District of Massachusetts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "OneCups" beverage cartridges infringe one design patent and two utility patents related to single-serve beverage cartridges and brewing chambers.
- Technical Context: The patents relate to the highly competitive single-serve beverage market, focusing on the ornamental design of disposable coffee pods and the mechanical functionality of the brewers that use them.
- Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. 7,347,138 is a continuation-in-part of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. 7,165,488, indicating a shared technological lineage and an evolution of the claimed invention. No other procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-12-03 | Priority Date, U.S. Patent No. D502,362 |
| 2003-12-12 | Priority Date, U.S. Patent No. 7,165,488 |
| 2003-12-12 | Priority Date, U.S. Patent No. 7,347,138 |
| 2005-03-01 | Issue Date, U.S. Patent No. D502,362 |
| 2007-01-23 | Issue Date, U.S. Patent No. 7,165,488 |
| 2008-03-25 | Issue Date, U.S. Patent No. 7,347,138 |
| 2011-11-02 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D502,362 - "Disposable Beverage Filter Cartridge," issued March 1, 2005
The Invention Explained
As a design patent, the ’362 patent does not claim a functional invention but rather the novel, non-obvious ornamental appearance of a disposable beverage filter cartridge (D'362 Patent, Claim). The protection covers the specific visual characteristics of the cartridge as depicted in its figures, including its overall shape and proportions (D'362 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
Key Claims at a Glance
The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a disposable beverage filter cartridge, as shown and described" (D'362 Patent, Claim).
U.S. Patent No. 7,165,488 - "Brew Chamber For A Single Serve Beverage Brewer," issued January 23, 2007
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes prior art single-serve brewers as having brew chambers that are "relatively complex and expensive" and inconvenient for users because the cartridge receptacle remains in a vertical orientation when open, hindering access (’488 Patent, col. 1:21-36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an improved brew chamber apparatus where the cartridge receptacle pivots from a vertical "brew position" to a "forwardly inclined open position" ('488 Patent, col. 2:46-52). This movement is linked to the opening and closing of a lid, simplifying the mechanism and making it easier for a user to insert and remove cartridges ('488 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-54).
- Technical Importance: The design sought to create a "relatively simple and inexpensive operating mechanism" that improved the ergonomics and user-friendliness of manual single-serve brewers ('488 Patent, col. 1:37-43).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more of the claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶16). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core apparatus invention.
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A housing for beverage forming components.
- A receptacle movable between a vertical position and a "stationary, inclined position."
- A lid that cooperates with the receptacle in the vertical position to enable beverage formation.
- A specific geometric relationship where the receptacle's opening faces away from the lid in the inclined position, and its center axis intersects the lid only in the vertical position.
- The complaint implicitly reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,347,138 - "Brew Chamber For A Single Serve Beverage Brewer," issued March 25, 2008
- Technology Synopsis: As a continuation-in-part of the '488 patent, the ’138 patent also claims a brew chamber with a pivoting receptacle. It further discloses a handle mechanism with "at least one resilient element" that provides "an 'over the center' yieldable tactile resistance" to hold the handle and lid securely in the closed position, giving the user a positive indication of chamber closure ('138 Patent, col. 4:50-67; Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more of the claims" without specification (Compl. ¶24). Independent claims 1 and 22 are the primary apparatus claims.
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant contributes to and induces infringement by selling its "OneCups" for use in Keurig brewers, which allegedly embody the patented technology (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 25).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Defendant’s "OneCups" beverage cartridges (Compl. ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context
The "OneCups" are single-serve beverage cartridges. The complaint alleges they are "advertised for use with Keurig's single-serve beverage brewers" (Compl. ¶8). A screenshot from Defendant's website, attached as Exhibit C, states that its "OneCups" work with KEURIG brewers (Compl. ¶16, Ex. C). The complaint further alleges that the cartridges are "especially designed for use with Keurig® single-serve brewers" and have "no other use; and in particular, they have no substantial noninfringing use" (Compl. ¶17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
For the '362 design patent, the infringement test is whether an ordinary observer would find the design of the accused "OneCups" to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the patent. The complaint does not provide a visual of the accused product, precluding a direct comparison.
For the '488 and '138 utility patents, the complaint’s theory is not that the "OneCups" cartridges themselves practice the claims, but that Defendant induces and contributes to infringement by selling the cartridges for use by consumers in Keurig's patented brewers (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 17). The "Alleged Infringing Functionality" is therefore practiced by the Keurig brewer itself.
'488 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing adapted to support components of a beverage forming device; | The outer body of the Keurig brewers in which the accused cartridges are used. | ¶16 | col. 2:13-17 |
| a receptacle, having an opening to receive a beverage cartridge, movable relative to the housing between a vertical position and a stationary, inclined position... | The brew chamber within the Keurig brewer that holds the cartridge and pivots between a vertical brewing position and an inclined open position for cartridge insertion/removal. | ¶16 | col. 2:46-52 |
| a lid movable relative to the housing between open and closed positions, the lid in the closed position cooperating with the receptacle in the vertical position to facilitate formation of a beverage... | The handle and lid assembly on the Keurig brewer that opens to allow access and closes to seal the receptacle for brewing. | ¶16 | col. 2:53-59 |
| wherein in the inclined position, the receptacle opening faces in a direction away from the lid... and when the receptacle is in the vertical position, the center axis extends vertically and intersects the lid... | The geometric operation of the Keurig brewer's lid and receptacle mechanism, which tilts the receptacle open for access and aligns it vertically for brewing. | ¶16 | col. 4:60-67 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement via the use of "OneCups" in "Keurig's single-serve beverage brewers" (Compl. ¶16). A key evidentiary question will be whether the specific brewer models used by customers with the accused cartridges practice every limitation of the asserted claims.
- Legal Questions: The viability of the indirect infringement claims for the '488 and '138 patents will depend on whether the "OneCups" cartridges are a "staple article of commerce" or have a "substantial non-infringing use." The complaint's assertion that they have no other use will likely be a central point of dispute (Compl. ¶17).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "stationary, inclined position" ('488 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the state of the receptacle when it is open for user access. Its construction is critical for differentiating the invention from prior art and determining whether the accused brewers' operation falls within the claim scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a particular angle of inclination or degree of stationarity, suggesting any stable, non-vertical position could qualify.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to a "forwardly inclined" position that "enhanc[es] its accessibility," suggesting the inclination must be in a specific direction and achieve a specific ergonomic purpose, not just be non-vertical ('488 Patent, col. 1:40-43).
The Term: "receptacle" ('488 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This is the primary component that interacts with the beverage cartridge. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope could determine whether only the specific embodiment shown is covered or if it extends to other structures that can hold a cartridge.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the receptacle broadly as having an "open top configured and dimensioned to receive a beverage filter cartridge" ('488 Patent, col. 2:28-31).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures show a receptacle with specific "contoured slots" that engage with pins from a linkage mechanism ('488 Patent, col. 3:10-14, Fig. 5). A defendant could argue that these features are essential to the definition of the claimed "receptacle".
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
This is the central theory for the '488 and '138 patents.
Inducement
The complaint alleges inducement based on Defendant’s advertising and website, which allegedly instruct and encourage consumers to use the "OneCups" in Keurig brewers, thereby directly infringing the patents (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 24). The complaint cites a screenshot of Defendant's website as evidence of this encouragement (Compl. ¶16, Ex. C).
Contributory Infringement
The complaint alleges the "OneCups" are a "material part of the patent invention," are not staple articles, and have "no substantial noninfringing use" because they are "especially designed" for Keurig brewers (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 25).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the patents. For the '488 patent, knowledge is alleged based on patent marking on the compatible Keurig brewers (Compl. ¶15). For the '138 patent, knowledge is alleged to have existed "prior to the filing of Keurig's complaint" (Compl. ¶23).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of indirect infringement: Can Keurig establish the factual predicates for its claims, namely that Rogers’s "OneCups" have no substantial non-infringing use and that Rogers acted with the specific intent to encourage its customers to infringe the '488 and '138 patents?
- A key evidentiary question for the '362 design patent will be one of visual identity: Would an ordinary observer, viewing the accused "OneCup" cartridge, be deceived into purchasing it believing it to be Keurig's patented design? The outcome will depend on a visual comparison of the accused product and the patent's drawings.
- The case may also turn on a question of infringement mapping: Assuming an indirect infringement theory is viable, do the specific Keurig brewer models, when used with Defendant's cartridges, actually practice all limitations of the asserted utility patent claims, particularly the specific mechanical movements and geometric configurations described?