DCT
1:19-cv-00637
Think Tank Innovations LLC v. Coca Cola Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Think Tank Innovations, LLC (Michigan)
- Defendant: The Coca-Cola Company (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Goldstein Law, PLLC; The Law Offices of Holly Barnes, PC
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00637, E.D. Tex., 12/26/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the district, including specific locations in Sherman and Texarkana, Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s branded beverage pitchers infringe a patent related to a container design that reduces foam generation in carbonated beverages.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the fluid dynamics of dispensing carbonated beverages, aiming to increase serving efficiency and reduce product waste by minimizing foam.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff notes it has a non-exclusive licensee, San Jamar, Inc., that sells pitchers reading on the patent-in-suit. The patent claims priority from a provisional application filed in 2012.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-04-03 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,139,413 |
| 2015-09-22 | U.S. Patent No. 9,139,413 Issued |
| 2019-09-01 | (Approx.) Defendant allegedly began using the accused product |
| 2019-12-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,139,413 - "Foam Reducing Container"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9139413, "Foam Reducing Container", issued September 22, 2015.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: When carbonated beverages like beer or soda are poured from a tap, significant foam is often created, leading to wasted product and time, as a bartender must wait for the foam to settle or pour more slowly (Compl. ¶7; ’413 Patent, col. 1:20-33). Manually tilting a standard pitcher can reduce foam but requires the user's constant attention, preventing them from performing other tasks (Compl. ¶7; ’413 Patent, col. 1:26-31).
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a beverage container, such as a pitcher, with a specially designed interior geometry. It features at least one "angled section" on an interior sidewall that extends diagonally from near the top of the pitcher toward the base, forming a "curved intersection" with the pitcher's floor (’413 Patent, col. 2:42-54). This sloped surface is designed to gently receive the stream of beverage from a tap dispenser, slowing its velocity before it reaches the liquid already in the container, thereby minimizing the turbulence that causes foam (’413 Patent, col. 4:36-41).
- Technical Importance: The design's key advantage is that it reduces foam while the pitcher rests flat on a surface, freeing the user's hands to perform other tasks and increasing the speed and efficiency of service (’413 Patent, col. 2:55-60).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶20). The analysis below focuses on Independent Claim 1, the primary apparatus claim.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a beverage container comprising:
- A vessel with a base, sidewalls, a vertical centerline, and a top opening.
- The sidewalls include a "filling side" that passes through the vertical centerline and is configured to "gradually decelerate" a downward stream of beverage.
- The filling side includes an "angled section" extending diagonally toward the base.
- The filling side also includes a "curved intersection" between the angled section and the interior floor.
- The angled section directs the beverage into the curved intersection, where the flow is "progressively slowed by traveling over an elongated arcuate surface," reducing foam.
- The complaint asserts infringement directly or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶20).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are "foam reducing beverage container[s]" used by Coca-Cola and available from its parts distribution provider under part numbers 150469, 150470, and 150471 (Compl. ¶13-14). The complaint alleges these pitchers are manufactured by or for Kurve Products, Inc. (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused pitchers "share the foam reducing interior curvature described and claimed in the '413 patent" (Compl. ¶15). A provided image shows two Coca-Cola branded pitchers, one empty and one filled with a dark, carbonated beverage, which appear to feature a curved interior wall. (Compl. ¶14, Image). A second image shows the pitchers marketed in a retail or service environment, suggesting their use in commercial settings. (Compl. ¶15, Image). The complaint also notes the pitchers "employ flat sides amenable to Coca-Cola's corporate branding" (Compl. ¶15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The following table summarizes the infringement theory based on the complaint's narrative allegations.
U.S. Patent No. 9,139,413 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a vessel defining an interior space...sized and shaped to retain a carbonated liquid beverage... | The accused product is a beverage pitcher used by Coca-Cola. A provided image shows the pitcher filled with what appears to be a carbonated beverage. | ¶13, ¶14 | col. 3:31-36 |
| the sidewalls include a filling side passing through the vertical centerline of the interior space... | The complaint alleges the accused pitchers possess the "foam reducing interior curvature" described in the patent. | ¶15 | col. 6:20-24 |
| the filling side being configured to gradually decelerate a downward stream of carbonated beverage... | The complaint alleges the accused products are "foam reducing beverage container[s]" that read on the claims. | ¶13, ¶20 | col. 6:25-29 |
| the filling side including an angled section extending from adjacent the top portion of the sidewalls diagonally toward the base of the vessel... | The complaint's general allegation of an infringing "interior curvature" is the basis for this element. The image of the accused product appears to show an interior wall with a continuous curve rather than a distinct angle. | ¶15 | col. 6:32-37 |
| the filling side further including a curved intersection disposed between the angled section and an interior floor... | The infringement allegation relies on the general assertion that the accused pitchers have the claimed "interior curvature." | ¶15 | col. 6:38-41 |
| wherein the angled section directs the carbonated beverage flow into the curved intersection where the in-flow of carbonated beverage is progressively slowed by traveling over an elongated arcuate surface... | The complaint alleges the accused pitchers are "foam reducing" and read on the claims, which implies they perform this function. | ¶13, ¶20 | col. 6:42-50 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may be whether the accused pitchers, which appear to have a smooth, continuously curved interior wall as shown in the complaint's image (Compl. ¶14, Image), meet the claim limitation of an "angled section" that forms a "curved intersection" with the floor. The defendant may argue that a single, continuous curve does not have the distinct "angled section" and "intersection" required by the claim language.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide evidence or specific factual allegations explaining how the accused pitchers "gradually decelerate" a beverage stream or "progressively slow" the flow over an "elongated arcuate surface." The functional aspects of these claim limitations will likely require expert testimony and testing to determine infringement.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "angled section"
- Context and Importance: This structural term is at the heart of the invention. Whether the accused product's geometry includes an "angled section" as distinct from a simple curve will be critical to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because the visual evidence in the complaint suggests the accused product may have a different geometry than the embodiments shown in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the slope changing, stating it can be "gradually curving as it approaches base 30" ('413 Patent, col. 5:5-6), which might support an argument that the term does not require a sharp, linear angle. The overall purpose is to create a slope, which a curve can achieve ('413 Patent, col. 2:47-49).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "angled" itself suggests a geometry different from "curved." The patent consistently refers to the "angled section 40" as a distinct feature that intersects with the "curved floor 41" ('413 Patent, col. 3:56-65). This language suggests two separate geometric features, not one continuous curve.
The Term: "progressively slowed by traveling over an elongated arcuate surface"
- Context and Importance: This is a functional limitation tied to a structural feature ("elongated arcuate surface"). The plaintiff must prove not only that the accused product has this surface but that the surface causes the claimed functional result of progressive slowing.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the overall goal is to slow the beverage flow to reduce disruption and foam ('413 Patent, col. 4:38-41). A party might argue that any curved surface at the base of the pitcher that achieves this functional goal meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires this slowing to occur while "passing through the vertical centerline" ('413 Patent, col. 6:47-49). This geometric constraint could limit the scope to specific flow paths and surface shapes, potentially excluding designs where the primary deceleration occurs elsewhere. The term "elongated" is also relative and may be construed narrowly based on the patent's figures.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations to support a claim for indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). It makes a general claim for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), which typically refers to direct infringement (Compl. ¶20).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement or provide any facts suggesting that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’413 patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:
A core issue will be one of claim construction and scope: Can the claim term "angled section", which the patent illustrates as a distinct feature intersecting with a curved floor, be construed broadly enough to read on the accused pitcher's seemingly continuous, single-curve interior wall as depicted in the complaint?
A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: Assuming the claim is construed to cover the accused pitcher's geometry, what technical evidence can Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the accused pitcher's "interior curvature" actually performs the claimed functions of "gradually decelerat[ing]" and "progressively slow[ing]" a beverage stream in the specific manner required by the claim?