Scholle Custom Packaging Inc v. Grayling Industries Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Scholle Custom Packaging, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Grayling Industries, Inc. (Georgia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: KING & JOVANOVIC, PLC
• Case Identification: 1:03-cv-00093, W.D. Mich., 04/17/2003
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant actively doing business within the Western District of Michigan and having committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s liners for large bulk bags infringe a patent related to connector technology that prevents the liner from being pulled out during discharge of the bag's contents.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses a common issue in the bulk material handling industry, where flexible liners inside large woven bags can be damaged or unintentionally removed when contents are emptied.
• Key Procedural History: A U.S. Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for the patent-in-suit was issued in 2007, four years after this complaint was filed. The reexamination resulted in the cancellation of several claims, including the original independent claim 1, and the amendment of others. This post-filing change to the patent’s scope will likely be a central issue in the litigation, as Plaintiff must now prove infringement of the surviving, narrowed claims.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1987-11-06	’472 Patent Priority Date
1988-11-01	’472 Patent Issue Date
2003-04-17	Complaint Filing Date
2007-08-07	’472 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issue Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 4,781,472 - "Large Bag With Liner"

• Issued: November 1, 1988.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a problem common with large bulk bags that use an inner liner: when the granular or liquid contents are discharged, the flow of material tends to draw the liner out of the bag, which can tear the liner or complicate the emptying process (’472 Patent, col. 1:42-49).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes attaching the liner to the outer bag using at least two specially placed connectors. These connectors are designed to secure the liner against the force of the discharging contents while still permitting the flexible liner to "collapse upon itself independently" of the outer bag (’472 Patent, col. 1:56-64). This arrangement prevents the liner from being pulled out and damaged but does not restrict its ability to fold as it empties. Figure 3 provides a detailed cross-section of one embodiment of a connector assembly (’472 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: The patented solution aimed to provide a more reliable and economical large bag and liner system that could be either permanently assembled or allow for easy liner replacement (’472 Patent, col. 1:50-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’472 Patent (Compl. ¶8). The original independent claim 1 was cancelled during a 2007 reexamination. The analysis below focuses on amended Claim 2, which now stands as an independent claim.

• Independent Claim 2 (as amended): This claim recites a combination of a flexible bulk bag and a liner, further requiring:
  • At least two connectors between the liner and the bag, which are spaced apart and located near a side wall and the discharge opening.
  • The connectors are constructed to allow the liner to collapse upon itself during discharge without being withdrawn from the bag.
  • The connectors permanently connect the liner to the bag.
  • The connectors are unitary.
  • The connectors project from the exterior of the liner and are directly stitched to said bag.
• The complaint does not specify other claims, but Plaintiff would retain the right to assert other surviving dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused products as "liners for use in association with large bulk bags" (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused product's specific design, materials, or method of attachment to a bulk bag. The allegations are limited to the general assertion that Defendant "makes or has made, uses, offers to sell and/or sells" infringing liners (Compl. ¶8). No allegations regarding the products' market position or commercial importance are made.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement in a conclusory manner without mapping specific product features to claim elements. The following chart summarizes the allegations for amended Claim 2 based on the general assertion in the complaint.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’472 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 2, as amended)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
In combination with a flexible and collapsible bulk bag... and a flexible and collapsible liner received in said bag...	Defendant's liners are alleged to be used in combination with large bulk bags.	¶8	col. 4:25-31
at least two connectors between said liner and bag... said connectors being spaced apart and each located adjacent a side wall portion of said bag...	Defendant’s liners are alleged to infringe one or more claims, which requires the presence of the claimed connectors.	¶8	col. 4:32-37
all of said connectors being constructed, arranged, located and connected to said liner such that said liner is not withdrawn from said bag and can collapse upon itself...	Defendant’s liners are alleged to infringe one or more claims, which requires the claimed functional result of the connectors.	¶8	col. 4:38-42
wherein said connectors permanently connect said liner to said bag...	Defendant’s liners are alleged to contain connectors that create a permanent connection.	¶8	col. 4:48-52
said connectors projecting from the exterior of the liner and directly stitched to said bag...	Defendant’s liners are alleged to have connectors that project from the liner and are stitched to the bag.	¶8	col. 4:53-57
said connectors being unitary...	Defendant’s liners are alleged to utilize connectors that are of a unitary construction.	¶8	col. 4:35-47

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: The complaint was filed before the claims were narrowed in reexamination and lacks specific factual allegations. A primary issue will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused liners meet all the specific, positive limitations added to Claim 2 during reexamination.
  • Technical Questions: The dispute will likely focus on the amended limitations. Key questions include: What technical features of the accused product constitute a "permanent" connection? Do the accused connectors have a "unitary" construction as described in the patent, or are they multi-piece assemblies? Does the evidence show the connectors are "directly stitched" to the bag?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Given the claim amendments, the definitions of terms added during reexamination will be critical.

• The Term: "permanently connect"

• Context and Importance: This term was added to distinguish the claimed invention from other embodiments and prior art. The patent discloses both removable connectors (e.g., using a key ring fastener) and permanent ones. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on whether the accused connection method is considered permanent or detachable.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term simply means any connection not intended for easy release by the end user, without specifying the method of attachment.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly shows permanent connection via stitching in Figures 6 and 7 and contrasts it with a releasable "key ring fastener" (col. 4:21), suggesting "permanent" implies a connection that cannot be undone without damaging the bag or liner (’472 Patent, col. 4:48-52).

• The Term: "unitary"

• Context and Importance: This term, also added during reexamination, narrows the scope of the claimed connector structure. Its construction will be pivotal in determining whether the accused product's connectors, whatever their form, fall within the claim.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue "unitary" refers to the connector being a single functional piece at the time of connection, even if formed from multiple adhered layers.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes one embodiment of a connector tab as a "homogenously integral part of the liner," formed from "two pieces... of overlapped plastic liner material" joined by a heat seal (’472 Patent, col. 4:35-43). This could support a narrower definition requiring a single, indivisible structure made of the same base material as the liner itself.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts to support a claim for indirect infringement, such as alleging that Defendant provided instructions to customers that would induce infringement (Compl. ¶8).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s actions are "exceptional" and that its infringement is "willful" (Compl. ¶11; Prayer for Relief ¶D). However, it does not plead a factual basis for this claim, such as alleging that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’472 Patent.

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

• A central issue will be one of claim scope and construction: Can Plaintiff prove that the accused liners meet the specific, narrowing limitations of "permanently connect," "unitary," and "directly stitched" that were added to the asserted claims years after the complaint was filed? The outcome will depend heavily on the court's interpretation of these terms.
• A key procedural and evidentiary question will be one of proof: Given that the complaint was filed against the original, broader patent claims, what evidence can Plaintiff now marshal to satisfy its burden of proof against the much narrower claims that survived reexamination? The case may turn on whether the accused products, which are not described in detail in the complaint, possess the highly specific features required by the amended patent.