DCT

1:04-cv-00081

Pactiv Corp v. Dow Chemical Co

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:04-cv-00081, N.D.N.Y., 01/23/2004
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the events giving rise to the claims occurring in the district and both parties conducting regular business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its methods for manufacturing plastic foam do not infringe Defendant's patents and/or that the patents are invalid and unenforceable.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on methods for accelerating the release of flammable blowing agents from closed-cell plastic foam by perforating the foam, a process intended to improve safety in manufacturing and handling.
  • Key Procedural History: This action arises from a licensing dispute with deep roots in prior litigation between Defendant (Dow) and Plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest, Astro-Valcour, Inc. (AVI). In that earlier case, Dow asserted the same patents-in-suit but later dismissed its infringement claims with prejudice. A central element of the current dispute is Pactiv's contention that its royalty obligations under a settlement-related license are void because the underlying patents are invalid, based in part on AVI's alleged prior invention and commercial practice of the claimed methods.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1980s Pactiv's predecessor (AVI) allegedly begins making perforated foam products
1991-04-30 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,424,016
1991-04-30 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,585,058
1995-06-13 U.S. Patent No. 5,424,016 Issued
1995-09-21 Prior litigation between Dow and AVI commenced
1996-12-17 U.S. Patent No. 5,585,058 Issued
1997-04-27 Pactiv's predecessor (Tenneco) acquired AVI assets
1998-11-XX Markman hearing held in prior Dow/AVI litigation
1999-08-XX Dow dismissed infringement claims on '016 and '058 patents with prejudice against AVI
2000-08-15 Court rules related "isobutane patents" invalid in prior litigation
2004-01-23 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,424,016 - "Method for Providing Accelerated Release of a Blowing Agent From a Plastic Foam" (Issued June 13, 1995)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a shift from ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbon blowing agents to alternatives like hydrocarbons for producing plastic foam. A key problem with hydrocarbons is their flammability, which creates a fire hazard while the agent remains entrapped within the foam's closed-cell structure. The natural release (permeation) of these agents can be very slow. (Compl., Ex. A, '016 Patent, col. 1:12-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to accelerate the release of these flammable agents. The solution involves mechanically perforating an extruded plastic foam to create a "multiplicity of channels" that extend from the surface into the foam. These channels, which are specified as being "free of direction with respect to the longitudinal extension of the foam," act as conduits, allowing the trapped blowing agent to escape into the environment more rapidly. (’016 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:44-52).
  • Technical Importance: This method purports to allow manufacturers to gain the environmental and cost benefits of hydrocarbon blowing agents while mitigating the associated fire risk by reducing the time required for the foam product to become non-flammable and dimensionally stable. (’016 Patent, col. 1:28-33).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity for all claims of the '016 Patent (Compl. ¶24; Prayer for Relief ¶1). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Claim 1 recites a method with these essential elements:
    • Providing an extruded plastic foam containing a blowing agent and a permeability modifier.
    • Perforating the foam's surface to create a multiplicity of channels that extend into the foam.
    • The created channels are "free of direction with respect to the longitudinal extension of the foam." (’016 Patent, col. 8:38-49).

U.S. Patent No. 5,585,058 - "Method for Providing Accelerated Release of a Blowing Agent From a Plastic Foam" (Issued December 17, 1996)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent, a continuation-in-part of the application leading to the '016 Patent, addresses the same technical problem: the fire hazard posed by flammable blowing agents that remain entrapped in closed-cell foams for extended periods after manufacture. (Compl., Ex. B, '058 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The '058 Patent claims a very similar method, but it more specifically recites starting with a "solid, non-perforated polyethylene foam." The method then involves perforating this solid foam to create channels that are "free of direction with respect to the longitudinal extension of the non-perforated foam," thereby providing an accelerated release path for the blowing agent. (’058 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:51-62).
  • Technical Importance: As with the '016 Patent, the described method aims to enhance safety in the foam manufacturing industry by allowing for the faster dissipation of flammable gases from the final product. (’058 Patent, col. 1:29-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity for all claims of the '058 Patent (Compl. ¶31; Prayer for Relief ¶2). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Claim 1 recites a method with these essential elements:
    • Providing a solid, non-perforated polyethylene foam containing a blowing agent and a permeability modifier.
    • Perforating the foam's surface to create a multiplicity of channels.
    • The channels extend from the surface and are "free of direction with respect to the longitudinal extension of the non-perforated foam." (’058 Patent, col. 8:51-62).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The subject of the non-infringement allegation is Plaintiff Pactiv's own "method utilized by plaintiff in the making of its products." (Compl. ¶23, 30).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide specific details about Pactiv's current manufacturing process. It does, however, allege that Pactiv's predecessor-in-interest, AVI, "regularly made foam products using an isobutane blowing agent with a permeability modifier and perforated its foam sheet products" beginning in the 1980s. (Compl. ¶5). This allegation is positioned as evidence of prior art for Pactiv's invalidity claims rather than as a description of the currently practiced method. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or sufficient technical detail to map Pactiv's process to the claim elements. It makes conclusory allegations of non-infringement (Compl. ¶23, 30). The core of the complaint focuses instead on allegations of patent invalidity.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Anticipation/Obviousness (§102/§103): The primary contention raised by Pactiv is that the '016 and '058 patents are invalid. The complaint alleges that Pactiv's predecessor, AVI, practiced the claimed invention at its Glens Falls facility beginning in the 1980s, well before the patents' 1991 priority date (Compl. ¶5, 20, 27). This raises a central factual question as to whether AVI's historical manufacturing processes constitute invalidating prior art.
    • Indefiniteness/Enablement (§112): Pactiv also asserts that the patents are invalid for failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, although it provides no specific basis for this allegation (Compl. ¶22, 29). This suggests potential future arguments about whether the claims are sufficiently clear or if the specification adequately teaches how to practice the invention without undue experimentation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "free of direction with respect to the longitudinal extension of the foam"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase appears to be the primary element distinguishing the invention from prior art processes where channels might be formed parallel to the extrusion direction. The patent specification itself distinguishes its method from prior art based on the directionality of the channels (’016 Patent, col. 4:41-49). The construction of this term will therefore be critical to determining both the scope of the claims for infringement purposes and their validity over the prior art Pactiv has alleged.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the channels "are free of direction" and "may be angled toward but not directional with the longitudinal extension" (’016 Patent, col. 4:47-52). This language suggests that any orientation other than one that is "directional with" (i.e., parallel to) the extrusion axis could fall within the claim's scope.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also discloses that the channels are "preferably situated by between about 30 and about 90 degrees with respect to the longitudinal extension" and "more preferably generally perpendicularly" to it (’016 Patent, col. 4:52-55). Dow may argue that these preferred embodiments limit the term to channels that are substantially angled to create a cross-flow path for the gas, rather than any non-parallel orientation.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement.

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

  1. A dispositive issue will be one of patent validity: Does the evidence of prior manufacturing activities by Pactiv's predecessor, AVI, which allegedly began in the 1980s, anticipate or render obvious the inventions claimed in the '016 and '058 patents, which have a 1991 priority date?
  2. A key procedural question is one of preclusion: What is the legal effect of Dow's dismissal with prejudice of its infringement claims on these same patents against AVI in the prior litigation? The court will have to determine if this action bars Dow from now seeking royalties from or asserting infringement against Pactiv, as AVI's successor-in-interest.
  3. Should the patents survive the validity and preclusion challenges, a central issue of claim construction will emerge: Can the term "free of direction," in light of the patent's specification and prosecution history, be construed to read on Pactiv's current manufacturing methods, or can Pactiv establish a clear technical distinction that places its process outside the claim scope?