DCT
4:25-cv-05040
BuzzBallz LLC v. Mpact Beverage Solutions LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: BuzzBallz, LLC (Delaware LLC with principal place of business in Texas)
- Defendant: MPact Beverage Solutions, LLC (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dorsey & Whitney LLP; Haynes and Boone, LLP
- Case Identification: 4:25-cv-05040, S.D. Tex., 10/22/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as the Defendant is a Texas entity that resides in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas and maintains a regular and established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ready-to-drink cocktail containers infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiff’s distinctive beverage container.
- Technical Context: The dispute is set in the competitive market for single-serve, ready-to-drink (RTD) alcoholic beverages, where container shape and visual branding are significant factors in consumer choice.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent Defendant a demand letter on September 19, 2025. In response, Defendant filed a declaratory judgment action for noninfringement in the District of Delaware on October 1, 2025, the deadline for responding to the demand letter. Plaintiff subsequently filed this infringement action.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-04-19 | ’384 Patent Earliest Priority Date |
| 2025-06-24 | ’384 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-09-19 | Plaintiff sends Defendant a demand letter alleging infringement |
| 2025-10-01 | Defendant files a declaratory judgment action in Delaware |
| 2025-10-14 | Defendant begins marketing accused products at a national trade show |
| 2025-10-22 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,080,384 - "Beverage Container"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,080,384, titled "Beverage Container," issued on June 24, 2025 (the “’384 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint notes that the Plaintiff’s founder sought to create a “distinctive” container for ready-to-drink cocktails (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 9). The implicit problem addressed by the design patent is the creation of a unique and ornamental container shape that stands out from conventional bottles and cans in a crowded marketplace.
- The Patented Solution: The ’384 Patent claims the specific ornamental design for a beverage container depicted in its figures (’384 Patent, Claim, FIGS. 1-2). The claimed design consists of the features shown in solid lines: a generally spherical or orb-like body that transitions into a distinct, raised collar or neck. Crucially, the patent explicitly disclaims features shown in broken lines, stating they "form no part of the claimed design," which includes the can-style opening and specific structures on the container’s base (’384 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: The container's design is central to the commercial identity of what the complaint describes as an "extremely successful line of ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages" (Compl. ¶2).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim, which in this case is for "The ornamental design for a beverage container as shown and described" (’384 Patent, Claim).
- The essential visual elements of the claimed design, depicted in solid lines in Figure 1, include:
- A generally spherical main body portion.
- A distinct, raised neck portion located atop the main body.
- The specific proportional relationship and curvature of the transition between the spherical body and the neck.
- The complaint seeks relief for infringement of the ’384 Patent generally, without limitation to specific claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are containers for the "MPact MAX High ABV Ready-To-Drink Cocktail" line (the "Infringing Containers") (Compl. ¶18).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are single-serve, ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages (Compl. ¶17). The complaint alleges Defendant has marketed these products through its website and at the National Association of Convenience Stores (“NACS”) trade show (Compl. ¶19). The complaint includes a screenshot from Defendant's website promoting the product's availability and its presence at the NACS show (Compl. ¶19, p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement test for a design patent is whether an "ordinary observer," giving the level of attention a typical purchaser would, would find the accused design substantially the same as the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused containers create a substantially similar overall visual impression to the design claimed in the ’384 Patent (Compl. ¶23).
- ’384 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (Visual Features of Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a beverage container as shown and described, having a generally spherical main body portion. | The accused MPact MAX container features a generally spherical or orb-like main body. | ¶¶ 18, 23 | FIG. 1 |
| The ornamental design having a distinct, raised neck portion atop the main body. | The accused MPact MAX container features a distinct, raised neck or collar portion atop its main body. | ¶¶ 18, 23 | FIG. 1 |
| The ornamental design having a specific overall visual impression based on the combination and proportion of the claimed features. | The complaint alleges that the overall visual impression of the accused container is "substantially the same as the claimed design." A side-by-side visual comparison is provided to support this allegation. The complaint's visual evidence breaks down the accused product into three portions—a top neck, a spherical body, and a base—that correspond to the patented design. (Compl. p. 7). | ¶23 | FIGS. 1-2 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused container remains substantially similar to the claimed design once the prominent surface graphics and branding (e.g., "MPACT MAX") are properly discounted from the analysis, as such surface treatment is not part of the claimed design.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will require filtering out the portions of the container shown in broken lines in the patent (the top opening and detailed base). A point of contention may be whether the designs remain substantially similar after this filtering process, or if differences in the unclaimed regions nonetheless influence the ordinary observer's perception of the product as a whole.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, claim construction focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, rather than on discrete text-based terms.
- The "Term": The scope of the claimed "ornamental design" as defined by the features depicted in solid lines in the patent drawings.
- Context and Importance: The distinction between the solid lines (claimed subject matter) and broken lines (unclaimed environment) is dispositive. The infringement analysis must compare the accused product only to the claimed solid-line features. Practitioners may focus on this distinction because the Defendant may argue that any perceived similarity is driven by the unclaimed, functional aspects of a beverage container, rather than the specific ornamental features protected by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for a shape, unadorned by color, text, or specific material texture. Plaintiff may argue this scope covers any container embodying the core shape, regardless of surface treatment. The use of simple line drawings suggests protection for the container's general form and proportions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's description explicitly states that the "broken lines...form no part of the claimed design" (’384 Patent, Description). A defendant may argue that this disclaimer strictly limits the protected design to the exact proportions and curvatures of the spherical body and neck as depicted in the solid-line drawings, and that any deviation in the accused product is a substantial difference.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been willful since at least September 19, 2025, the date Plaintiff provided notice via a demand letter that included infringement charts (Compl. ¶35). The complaint asserts that Defendant’s subsequent actions—including filing a preemptive declaratory judgment action and continuing to market and sell the accused products—demonstrate a "deliberate and conscious decision to infringe" or a "reckless disregard of BuzzBallz’s patent rights" (Compl. ¶¶ 26-27, 35).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court's determination of two primary issues:
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: In the eye of an ordinary observer, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused MPact container substantially the same as the shape claimed in the ’384 Patent, after properly disregarding the product's surface branding and the patent's disclaimed features?
- A key secondary question will relate to willfulness and intent: Did the Defendant's decision to continue commercializing its product after receiving a detailed notice letter constitute objective recklessness sufficient to support enhanced damages, or can its conduct be characterized as a good-faith dispute over the scope of the patented design?