DCT
5:24-cv-00692
BuzzBallz LLC v. Beverage Ranch LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: BuzzBallz, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: The Beverage Ranch, LLC (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Haynes and Boone, L.L.P.
- Case Identification: 5:24-cv-00692, W.D. Tex., 06/21/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant resides in the district, has a regular and established place of business in the district, and has sold the allegedly infringing products in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "SlamZees" line of ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages is sold in containers that infringe a patent related to uniquely shaped beverage containers.
- Technical Context: The technology resides in the competitive ready-to-drink beverage market, where container shape and design serve as significant product differentiators for single-serving products.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the inventor assigned the patent-in-suit to Plaintiff BuzzBallz on September 13, 2023. Plaintiff alleges it sent Defendant a notice letter on January 29, 2024, alleging infringement, and a second letter on March 8, 2024. The complaint further alleges that Defendant had not launched the accused products at the time of the first notice.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-04-19 | '955 Patent Priority Date |
| 2022-05-24 | '955 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-09-13 | '955 Patent assigned to Plaintiff BuzzBallz |
| 2023-11-03 | Alleged first discovery of Accused Product via Instagram |
| 2024-01-29 | Plaintiff sent first notice of infringement letter to Defendant |
| 2024-03-08 | Plaintiff sent second notice of infringement letter to Defendant |
| 2024-06-21 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,338,955 - "Container"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that while metal cans with "easy-open-end" lids are popular, metal is difficult and expensive to form into novel shapes. Conversely, plastic is easily molded into various designs to increase a container's attractiveness. ( '955 Patent, col. 1:19-33).
- The Patented Solution: The invention combines a molded plastic container body, which can be formed into a unique shape, with a conventional metal "pop top" lid. ( '955 Patent, col. 2:10-17). This allows for a container with a distinctive, non-traditional body shape—such as the "truncated spherical body" shown in Figure 1—while retaining the functionality and consumer familiarity of an easy-open metal can lid. ('955 Patent, col. 2:21-22, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The invention provided a method for creating differentiated, single-serving beverage packaging that merged the design flexibility of plastic molding with the popular and well-established metal pop-top opening mechanism.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 10 and 21. (Compl. ¶¶19, 24).
- The essential elements of independent claim 10 include:
- A container body with a side wall and a horizontally-extending base.
- An interior shaped as a "truncated spherical shape."
- A top diameter and a base diameter that are both less than the middle diameter.
- A circular neck extending vertically from the side wall.
- A side wall that extends "uninterruptedly" between the neck and the base.
- Independent claim 21 is nearly identical to claim 10, but recites a "horizontally-extending portion" instead of a "horizontally-extending base." ('955 Patent, col. 6:23-24).
- The complaint notes that Plaintiff may assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶80).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are the containers for Defendant's "SlamZees" brand of ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages. (Compl. ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the SlamZees products are packaged in "truncated, round, plastic containers." (Compl. ¶17). Visual evidence provided in the complaint shows a rounded, single-serving plastic container with a metal pop-top lid, similar in concept to a standard aluminum beverage can lid. The complaint includes a photograph of the "SlamZees" product container, which displays its shape and features. (Compl. ¶17).
- The complaint alleges Defendant began making "widespread sales" of the accused products after receiving notice of the '955 Patent. (Compl. ¶23). This positions the SlamZees products as market competitors to Plaintiff's own BuzzBallz products. (Compl. ¶¶8, 17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused SlamZees products infringe at least claims 10 and 21 of the '955 Patent because they "include all of the recited elements" of those claims. (Compl. ¶25). The complaint references an exemplary claim chart in Exhibit B, which was not attached to the publicly filed complaint. The infringement theory can be reconstructed from the complaint's allegations and the visual evidence provided, such as the photograph of the SlamZees container. (Compl. ¶17).
'955 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A container...comprising a container body, the container body comprising a container side wall and a horizontally-extending base connected to the container side wall... | The accused SlamZees product is a container with a body composed of a side wall and a base. | ¶¶17, 25 | col. 2:18-27 |
| wherein the container side wall and the horizontally-extending base are shaped so that an interior of said container body has a truncated spherical shape... | The accused SlamZees container is alleged to be a "truncated, round, plastic container" with a rounded, sphere-like body shape. | ¶¶17, 25 | col. 2:21-22 |
| wherein a cross-sectional diameter of a top portion...is less than a cross-sectional diameter of a middle portion...wherein the horizontally-extending base defines a diameter that is less than the cross-sectional diameter of the middle portion... | The visual evidence depicts the accused container as having a wide middle section that tapers toward a narrower top and base. | ¶¶17, 25 | col. 4:6-13 |
| wherein the container body further comprises a circular neck extending vertically from the container side wall...wherein an upper edge of said container side wall is adjacent to the circular neck... | The accused container is depicted with a neck structure at its top, above the main rounded body, to which a lid is affixed. | ¶¶17, 25 | col. 2:30-34 |
| wherein the container side wall extends uninterruptedly between the circular neck and the horizontally-extending base. | The side wall of the accused container is alleged to form a continuous structure extending from the top neck area to the bottom base area. | ¶¶17, 25 | col. 5:25-29 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the meaning of "truncated spherical shape." The parties may contest whether the specific curvature and proportions of the accused SlamZees container meet this geometric limitation as it is defined in the patent. The existence of two nearly identical independent claims (10 and 21), differing only by the words "base" and "portion," may also become a point of legal argument regarding claim differentiation or indefiniteness.
- Technical Questions: Claim 10 requires the side wall to extend "uninterruptedly." The photograph of the accused product appears to show decorative ridges or fluting on the container's side wall. (Compl. ¶17). A key technical question will be whether these surface features constitute an "interruption" that would place the product outside the literal scope of the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "truncated spherical shape"
- Context and Importance: This term is the primary descriptor of the container's novel design and is central to the patent's claims. The outcome of the infringement analysis will likely depend heavily on how this term is construed.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader definition may point to the general description of the container body being "shaped as a truncated spherical body" without further mathematical restriction, suggesting the term covers generally sphere-like or rounded shapes. ('955 Patent, col. 2:21-22).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower definition may rely on the patent's figures, particularly Figure 1 and the dimensional drawing in Figure 8, to argue that the term requires a specific geometry derived from a sphere, not just any rounded container. ('955 Patent, Figs. 1, 8).
The Term: "uninterruptedly"
- Context and Importance: This term modifies the "container side wall." Its construction is critical because the accused product appears to have surface features that could be characterized as interruptions. Practitioners may focus on this term as a potential basis for a non-infringement argument.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "uninterruptedly" refers to the continuous, unitary nature of the side wall's structure from the neck to the base, and that cosmetic surface features like ridges do not "interrupt" this fundamental structure. The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition for the term.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could point to the patent's own drawings, such as Figure 1, which depict a container with a perfectly smooth side wall surface, to argue that "uninterruptedly" requires the absence of any surface discontinuities or features. ('955 Patent, Fig. 1).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement or provide specific factual allegations to support such a claim, such as detailing how Defendant instructs others to infringe.
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant possessing "actual knowledge of the '955 Patent" since at least January 29, 2024, the date of Plaintiff's first notice letter. (Compl. ¶83). The complaint strengthens this allegation by asserting that Defendant had not yet launched or made significant sales of the accused product at the time it was notified, and that it "ignored BuzzBallz's patent rights and began making widespread sales" thereafter. (Compl. ¶¶20, 23).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "truncated spherical shape," which defines the patented container, be construed to read on the specific geometry of the accused "SlamZees" container? The resolution of this claim construction dispute will be fundamental to the case.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical correspondence: do the decorative ridges visible on the accused product's exterior constitute "interruptions" in the "container side wall," thereby taking the product outside the literal scope of the claim language requiring the wall to extend "uninterruptedly"?
- A central question for damages will be willfulness: given the allegation that Defendant launched the accused product line after receiving actual notice of the '955 Patent and the infringement allegations, the court will need to determine if Defendant's conduct, if found to be infringing, rose to the level of willful infringement justifying enhanced damages.