DCT

6:12-cv-01682

Ethox Chemical LLC v. Coca Cola Co The

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:12-cv-01682, D.S.C., 06/19/2012
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of South Carolina because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the district, and Defendant conducts business there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant misappropriated an inventive molecule, bis(2-phenoxyethyl)terephthalate ("PEM"), conceived by Plaintiff Tanner and subsequently patented it in U.S. Patent No. 8,110,265 without naming Tanner as a co-inventor.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to chemical additives for polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic bottles that enhance their properties as gas barriers, thereby increasing the shelf-life of carbonated beverages.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs disclosed the PEM molecule to Coca-Cola in confidence during a joint development project. Subsequently, Coca-Cola allegedly filed multiple patent applications claiming the PEM molecule, including the application that issued as the patent-in-suit, without informing Plaintiffs or naming Tanner as an inventor.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-12-09 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,110,265
2009-02-01 (Approx.) Coca-Cola approaches Ethox for development assistance
2009-08-26 Plaintiff Tanner allegedly conceives and reduces to practice PEM
2009-08-26 Plaintiff Tanner allegedly discloses PEM invention to Coca-Cola
2009-12-02 Coca-Cola files utility application that issues as the '265 Patent
2012-02-07 U.S. Patent No. 8,110,265 issues
2012-06-19 Complaint for correction of inventorship filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,110,265 - "PET CONTAINER AND COMPOSITIONS HAVING ENHANCED MECHANICAL PROPERTIES AND GAS BARRIER PROPERTIES"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the technical challenge that standard PET plastic, while widely used for beverage containers, has relatively high permeability to gases like carbon dioxide. This gas leakage limits the shelf life of carbonated drinks. The patent also notes that PET molecules can "creep" under pressure, causing the bottle to expand, which also degrades carbonation. (’265 Patent, col. 1:33-60).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims to address these problems by providing a polyester composition that includes both a "creep control agent" and a "gas barrier enhancing additive" blended with the base polyester. (’265 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-18). These additives are intended to improve the container's mechanical stability and reduce gas permeation without negatively affecting the plastic's clarity or other desirable properties. (’265 Patent, col. 2:1-9).
  • Technical Importance: Developing additives that improve gas-barrier performance allows for the use of lightweight, shatter-resistant PET bottles for a wider range of products, including smaller-volume soft drinks and oxygen-sensitive beverages like beer, which traditionally required glass or metal packaging. (Compl. ¶2-3).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint identifies at least Claims 11-14 as being co-invented by Plaintiff Tanner (Compl. ¶71). The key independent claim from which these depend is Claim 1.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A container comprising a polyester composition
    • the composition comprising a polyester,
    • a creep control agent, and
    • a gas barrier enhancing additive.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims but seeks correction of inventorship for the patent generally.

III. The Disputed Inventive Contribution

Contribution Identification

The specific inventive contribution at issue is the molecule bis(2-phenoxyethyl)terephthalate, referred to as "PEM." (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

  • Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiff Tanner conceived of and synthesized the PEM molecule as a potential gas-barrier additive for PET bottles. (Compl. ¶28). The complaint alleges this was proposed as an alternative to a different molecule, "BP01," which Tanner had determined was not economically feasible to produce at the required purity. (Compl. ¶27).
  • The PEM molecule is alleged to function as a superior gas barrier additive, limiting the permeability of PET bottles and thereby increasing the shelf-life of products like soda. (Compl. ¶3). The complaint details a sequence of events where Plaintiffs provided Coca-Cola with technical information and physical samples of PEM for evaluation, based on Coca-Cola's expressed interest in the new molecule. (Compl. ¶29, 31-36).

IV. Analysis of Inventorship Allegations

The central allegation is that Plaintiff Tanner conceived of the PEM molecule, which is a species of the "gas barrier enhancing additive" recited in the patent's claims. The complaint specifically points to claims 11-14 as containing Tanner's inventive contribution. (Compl. ¶71). Claim 11, which depends from Claim 1, is particularly relevant.

The complaint provides a visual representation of the PEM chemical structure allegedly conceived by Tanner. (Compl. p. 7). This visual shows a specific terephthalate molecule with phenoxyethyl groups.

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claim 11) Alleged Inventive Contribution by Tanner Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a gas barrier enhancing additive Plaintiff Tanner allegedly conceived of, synthesized, and disclosed to Coca-Cola the specific PEM molecule to serve this function. ¶28-29 col. 2:16-18
The container of claim 1, wherein the gas barrier additive comprises a compound having the chemical structure of Formula II, wherein X and X⁶ each comprise an phenoxy group. The PEM molecule, allegedly invented solely by Tanner, is bis(2-phenoxyethyl)terephthalate. This specific molecule is an embodiment of the generic structure recited in Claim 11 and is explicitly named in the patent as PEM. ¶1, 28, 71 col. 28:43-48; col. 39:4-11

Identified Points of Contention

  • Contribution to Conception: A primary question for the court will be whether the conception and reduction to practice of the specific PEM molecule, as alleged by Plaintiffs, constitutes a significant contribution to the conception of the subject matter of at least one claim of the ’265 patent, sufficient to qualify Tanner as a joint inventor.
  • Derivation vs. Independent Invention: The case will likely require evidence to determine whether the named inventors derived the invention of the PEM molecule from Tanner's disclosure, as the complaint alleges (Compl. ¶37), or if they conceived of it independently. The timeline of disclosures from Tanner relative to the patent's filing date will be a central factual issue.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In an inventorship dispute, the focus is typically on factual evidence of conception rather than claim construction. However, the scope of the terms defines what the patent covers and, therefore, what a person must have contributed to in order to be an inventor.

  • The Term: "gas barrier enhancing additive"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because it is the element of the claims that allegedly reads on Plaintiff Tanner's PEM molecule. The dispute hinges on whether Tanner's alleged conception of PEM amounts to a conception of this claimed element. Practitioners may focus on this term to frame the question of whether contributing a single, commercially significant species (PEM) to a broad genus of "additives" makes one an inventor of claims to that genus.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides very broad structural definitions for the "gas barrier enhancing additive" in the form of generic Formula A and Formula B, which encompass a large number of potential compounds. (’265 Patent, col. 37:15-26). This could support an argument that the named inventors conceived of the broad class, even if a third party contributed one species.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification explicitly identifies bis(2-phenoxyethyl)terephthalate (PEM) by name and provides its specific chemical structure, identifying it as a particular embodiment of the invention. (’265 Patent, col. 28:43-48). Furthermore, dependent claim 11 specifically recites a chemical structure that Plaintiffs allege corresponds to PEM. The specificity with which PEM is described and claimed could support an argument that its conception was a distinct and material contribution to the invention claimed in the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint includes multiple counts beyond the patent-specific claim for correction of inventorship, including allegations of:

  • Violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count III)
  • Misappropriation (Count IV)
  • Unjust Enrichment (Count V)
  • Fraud (Count VI)
  • Negligent Misrepresentation (Count VII)
  • Misappropriation of Trade Secrets (Count VIII)
  • Imposition of a Constructive Trust (Count IX)

These counts are largely based on the same core factual allegations: that Coca-Cola solicited technical assistance from Plaintiffs, received the PEM invention under an expectation of confidentiality, and then wrongfully used that information for its own benefit by filing for patents and publishing the information without consent or proper attribution. (Compl. ¶83, 89, 93, 100, 105, 113).

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

This case appears to turn less on complex claim construction and more on the factual history of the invention. The central questions for the court will likely be:

  • A core issue will be one of inventive contribution: Does the evidence demonstrate that Plaintiff Tanner was the first to conceive of the specific PEM molecule and its application as a gas barrier additive for PET, and does this contribution represent a "significant" part of the invention claimed in at least one claim of the ’265 patent?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of derivation: Can Plaintiffs prove that the named inventors learned of the PEM molecule from Tanner’s confidential disclosures, as alleged, rather than conceiving of it through their own independent research? The timing and content of communications between the parties will be critical evidence.