DCT
2:21-cv-00464
Ring Container Tech LLC v. Altium Packaging LP
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ring Container Technologies, LLC (Tennessee)
- Defendant: Altium Packaging LP (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Gillam & Smith, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:21-cv-00464, E.D. Tex., 12/22/2021
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s plastic container and cardboard box packaging systems infringe patents related to ergonomic designs that facilitate handling and pouring.
- Technical Context: The technology pertains to composite packaging for bulk liquids, where an inner plastic container is housed in an outer box to provide both structural integrity for stacking and ergonomic features for end-users.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of infringement through correspondence, calls, and meetings beginning in at least May 2021, which may form the basis for allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-09-25 | Priority Date for ’503 and ’939 Patents |
| 2010-06-01 | U.S. Patent No. 7,726,503 Issues |
| 2013-02-05 | U.S. Patent No. 8,365,939 Issues |
| 2021-05-01 | Defendant allegedly notified of infringement (approximate date) |
| 2021-12-22 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,726,503 - Ergonomic Plastic Container and Package System (Issued Jun. 1, 2010)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a drawback in conventional large containers, which are often difficult for a user to handle for both carrying and pouring, especially as container size and weight increase. Furthermore, when such containers are placed in boxes for stacking and transport, the user typically must remove the container to access its contents, thereby losing the structural benefits of the box during use. (’503 Patent, col. 1:29-45).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a packaging system comprising a container housed within a box. The system is designed so that the user can access the container's ergonomic features—such as handles and a spout—through openings in the box. This allows the contents to be poured while the container remains inside the box, preserving the stability and stackability of the overall package. (’503 Patent, col. 2:7-27).
- Technical Importance: This integrated design approach sought to resolve the conflict between the need for robust, stackable packaging for logistics and the need for user-friendly, ergonomic handling at the point of use. (’503 Patent, col. 1:40-45).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 29 (Compl. ¶27).
- Essential elements of Claim 29 include:
- A packaging comprising a container in a box.
- The container having a top, bottom, front side, back side, and "flat planar side portions" that intersect with the front and back sides at an angle greater than 90°.
- The box similarly having a top cover, bottom cover, front side, back side, and "flat box planar side portions" that intersect with the box's front and back sides at an angle greater than 90°.
- The complaint notes that infringement is alleged for "one or more claims...including, but not limited to, exemplary Claim 29" (Compl. ¶25).
U.S. Patent No. 8,365,939 - Ergonomic Plastic Container and Package System (Issued Feb. 5, 2013)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’503 Patent, this patent addresses the same general problem of improving the ergonomics of large, boxed containers for carrying and pouring. (’939 Patent, col. 1:40-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claimed in the ’939 Patent focuses on a specific structural relationship between the box and the container's handle. It describes a packaging system where the box top has a "U-shape opening" strategically positioned relative to the container’s handle and spout. This opening allows a user to grasp the container’s handle through the box, facilitating one-handed control while pouring. (’939 Patent, col. 2:18-27; Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This specific configuration aimed to enhance user control and stability during the act of pouring from a heavy container, a critical usability feature for end-users of bulk products. (’939 Patent, col. 1:53-57).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A packaging comprising a container with a top, a spout, and a first handle portion.
- The packaging further comprises a box with the container disposed inside.
- The box has a top and a "U-shape opening" in the box top.
- The open end of the U-shape opening is oriented toward the spout.
- The closed end of the U-shape opening is located "at or near the distal end of the first handle portion" and is "configured to be grasped by one hand."
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims...including, but not limited to, exemplary Claim 1" (Compl. ¶39).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are the "plastic container and packaging system" manufactured and sold by Defendant and used by third parties, such as Old World Industries, to package its "BlueDEF® Diesel Exhaust Fluid 2.5 gallon product" (Compl. ¶19).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused product consists of a plastic container sold to consumers inside a cardboard box (Compl. ¶28). The complaint alleges the product is designed to be stackable for retail display, as shown in a photograph from an AutoZone store (Compl. ¶21, p. 6). The box features a top opening that exposes the inner container's handle and spout, which the complaint alleges allows for easier handling by the user for carrying and pouring (Compl. ¶22). A photograph in the complaint labels the "Container" inside the "Box" with the top opening visible (Compl. ¶28, p. 8). The product is sold through retail channels to consumers for use in diesel vehicles (Compl. ¶20-21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’503 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 29) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A packaging comprising: a container in a box; | The accused product is a plastic container disposed within a cardboard box. | ¶28 | col. 2:7-8 |
| the container comprising... a top; a bottom; sides extending from the top to the bottom and comprising a front side and a back side... | The container of the accused product is alleged to have a top, bottom, front side, and back side. A photograph shows the container's top and front side (Compl. ¶29, p. 8). | ¶29 | col. 3:1-3 |
| and flat planar side portions disposed between each side of the front side and the back side so as to intersect at an angle greater than 90[°] with front side and back side, respectively; | The accused container allegedly includes flat planar side portions that form angled corners. A photograph labels this feature (Compl. ¶30, p. 9). | ¶30 | col. 4:41-45 |
| the box comprising: a top cover, a bottom cover and side portions... including a box front side and a box back side... | The accused product's box is alleged to have a top cover, bottom cover, side portions, a front side, and a back side. | ¶31 | col. 4:1-2 |
| and flat box planar side portions disposed between each side of the box front side and the box back side so as to intersect at an angle greater than 90° with the box front side and the box back side, respectively. | The accused box allegedly includes flat planar side portions that form angled corners. A photograph highlights this element (Compl. ¶32, p. 10). | ¶32 | col. 4:45-50 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may involve the claim term "flat planar side portions." The analysis will likely question whether the accused container's and box's corner structures, which may have some degree of curvature or molding artifacts, meet the geometric requirements of being "flat" and "planar."
- Technical Questions: The complaint asserts that the side portions intersect at an angle "greater than 90°." A key evidentiary question will be whether objective measurement of the accused product confirms this specific angular relationship, as required by the claim.
’939 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A packaging comprising: a container comprising: a container top; a spout; | The accused product includes a container with a top and a spout, as illustrated in a labeled photograph (Compl. ¶42, p. 12). | ¶42 | col. 3:1-4 |
| and a first handle portion extending away from the spout, the first handle portion comprising a proximal end at or near the spout, and a distal end opposite the proximal end; | The accused container allegedly includes a handle extending away from the spout. | ¶43 | col. 3:4-7 |
| the packaging further comprising a box, wherein the container is disposed inside of the box, the box comprising: a box top; and a U-shape opening in the box top; | The accused product includes a box with a U-shaped opening in its top, inside of which the container is disposed. A photograph shows this configuration (Compl. ¶44-45, pp. 13-14). | ¶44-45 | col. 4:1-6 |
| wherein an open end of the U-shape opening opens toward the spout; | The opening in the accused product's box is oriented with its open side facing the container's spout. | ¶46 | col. 2:22-24 |
| and wherein a closed end of the U-shape opening is at or near the distal end of the first handle portion and is configured to be grasped by one hand. | The closed end of the opening is allegedly positioned near the far end of the container's handle to allow a user to grip it. A photograph illustrates this alleged spatial relationship (Compl. ¶46, p. 14). | ¶46 | col. 2:24-27 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The interpretation of "U-shape opening" will be critical. The dispute will raise the question of whether the accused product's opening, which appears somewhat rectangular with rounded corners in photographs, possesses the specific geometry of a "U-shape" as understood in the context of the patent.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires the opening's closed end to be "at or near" the handle's distal end and "configured to be grasped." This raises factual questions about proximity and intended function. What evidence demonstrates that the specific placement in the accused product is "at or near" the handle's end, and what features show it is "configured" for grasping, as opposed to merely allowing access?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’503 Patent
- The Term: "flat planar side portions"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the geometry of both the container and the box, seemingly referring to chamfered or beveled corners. The infringement analysis for Claim 29 hinges on whether the accused product's corners meet this precise geometric description.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes an embodiment where "the sides are shown joined to each other by vertical chamfered corners" (’503 Patent, col. 4:2-3), suggesting the term is intended to encompass such structures rather than requiring a large, primary face of the container to be a "side portion."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of both "flat" and "planar" could be argued to require a geometrically precise flat surface, excluding surfaces with any functional or aesthetic curvature. The patent figures, particularly Figure 5, depict the box with sharp, geometrically flat chamfers.
For the ’939 Patent
- The Term: "U-shape opening"
- Context and Importance: This term is a central structural element of the claimed box in Claim 1. Whether the cutout in the accused box qualifies as a "U-shape" is a potentially dispositive issue for infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition of "U-shape," which may support an argument that the term should be given its ordinary meaning, covering any opening that generally resembles the letter 'U' and allows access to the handle as described.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 5 of the patent depicts a distinct U-shape (item 15) with two parallel sides and a flat bottom perpendicular to those sides. A defendant may argue this drawing defines the scope of the term, excluding other shapes like rectangles or trapezoids.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement theory is based on allegations that Defendant, with knowledge of the patents since at least May 2021, continued to provide the accused products to customers (e.g., Old World) with the intent that they resell the infringing items (Compl. ¶33, ¶47). The contributory infringement theory is based on the allegation that the accused products have no substantial non-infringing uses and are especially adapted for infringing the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶34, ¶48).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged continued infringement after receiving notice from Plaintiff in or around May 2021 (Compl. ¶35, ¶49).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This dispute appears to center on the specific geometry of packaging design. The outcome will likely depend on the court's interpretation of key claim terms and the factual evidence presented about the accused product's physical characteristics.
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms describing precise geometry, such as the "flat planar side portions" of the ’503 Patent and the "U-shape opening" of the ’939 Patent, be construed to cover the specific shapes and corner profiles of the accused packaging?
- A second key question will be one of configurational infringement: for the ’939 Patent, does the accused product's assembly of a box opening, container spout, and handle satisfy the claim's specific relational requirements, such as the opening's closed end being "at or near" the handle's far end and being "configured to be grasped"? This will require a detailed analysis of not just the components themselves, but their interaction and intended function.