DCT

6:18-cv-00070

Crown Packaging Technology Inc v. Belvac Production Machinery Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:18-cv-00070, W.D. Va., 08/28/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant resides in the district, has a regular and established place of business in the district, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s high-speed can necking machines incorporate patented technology pioneered by Plaintiffs, including specific machine configurations and tooling designs that enable faster and more reliable production.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns industrial machinery for "necking," or reducing the diameter of, the top of aluminum beverage cans, a critical process for high-volume can manufacturing.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details a history of competition and prior litigation between the parties, including a 2007 U.S. case filed by Belvac against Crown's predecessor that was dismissed with prejudice, and a parallel U.K. case that resulted in a judgment of non-infringement for Crown's machine. The complaint also notes extensive pre-suit correspondence and meetings between the parties regarding the patents-in-suit, beginning in July 2017.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-01-01 Plaintiff begins development of its CMB3400 machine (approx.)
2007-04-01 Plaintiff launches CMB3400 machine (approx.)
2007-10-01 Defendant sends cease-and-desist letter to Plaintiff (approx.)
2007-12-20 Defendant files patent infringement litigation against Plaintiff in Nevada
2008-01-14 Defendant files patent infringement claim against Plaintiff in the U.K.
2008-04-24 Earliest Priority Date for ’982, ’570, ’425, and ’784 Patents
2009-02-26 U.K. High Court of Justice rules in favor of Plaintiff
2009-10-21 Nevada litigation dismissed with prejudice
2010-01-01 Defendant launches accused "THE BELVAC" necker (approx.)
2010-08-10 U.S. Patent No. 7,770,425 issues
2016-04-12 U.S. Patent No. 9,308,570 issues
2017-07-01 Plaintiff notifies Defendant of alleged infringement of ’570 and ’425 Patents (approx.)
2018-01-31 Plaintiff notifies Defendant of pending application for ’982 Patent
2018-05-15 U.S. Patent No. 9,968,982 issues
2020-08-25 U.S. Patent No. 10,751,784 issues
2020-08-28 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,968,982 - “High Speed Necking Configuration”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a "constant need to produce more and more cans per minute" in commercial beverage can manufacturing, which is limited by the speed of multi-stage necking machines. A key challenge is maintaining the "concentricity" of the can body and neck at high speeds to prevent weak or improperly seamed cans. (’982 Patent, col. 2:1-8).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a specific geometric arrangement of the machine's rotating components. By positioning the axes of the transfer "starwheels" relative to the main "turrets" in a "saw tooth configuration," the machine achieves an included angle of less than 170 degrees. This altered geometry increases the angular range available for the necking operation, which allows for either a longer, slower, more controlled die stroke or higher overall can throughput. (’982 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:11-21). The complaint includes a diagram illustrating the basic components of a two-piece aluminum can, which is the subject of the manufacturing process (Compl. ¶14).
  • Technical Importance: This configuration is alleged to allow for processing speeds of over 3,000 cans per minute while maintaining high concentricity, a significant improvement over prior art machines (Compl. ¶20).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶46).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A horizontal beverage can necking machine assembly with multiple horizontal necking stages adapted for necking at least 3000 cans per minute.
    • The longitudinal centers of adjacent necking stages and a transfer starwheel form an included angle of no more than 170 degrees.
    • Each necking stage has a main turret with a main turret shaft, a starwheel with pockets for cans, and a main gear.
    • Each pocket has a necking die and an opposing pad.
    • Each necking die has a "throat portion" at least 0.125 inches long, a smaller "body portion," and a transition portion.
    • The pad and die have a first spaced-apart configuration and a second engaged configuration, where the distance between them changes by at least 1.5 inches.

U.S. Patent No. 9,308,570 - “High Speed Necking Configuration”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with its related patents, the '570 Patent addresses the technical challenge of increasing the throughput of die necking machines while ensuring the quality and integrity of the finished can (Compl. ¶16; ’570 Patent, col. 2:1-8).
  • The Patented Solution: The '570 Patent also focuses on the "saw tooth" configuration of turrets and starwheels to increase the available angular range for necking. The claims of this patent, however, appear to focus more on the overall system capabilities, such as the throughput rate and the "stroke length," rather than the specific geometry of the die and pad movement found in the '982 Patent. (’570 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:1-12).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture is alleged to enable machines to achieve speeds of at least 3000 cans per minute with a long stroke length, contributing to more consistent and reliable necking (Compl. ¶20, ¶56(g)).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶56).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A horizontal can necking machine assembly with plural main turrets and plural transfer starwheels.
    • Each main turret includes a shaft, a "main gear mounted proximate to an end of the main turret shaft," a pusher assembly, and a die.
    • The die includes a throat portion at least 0.125 inches long.
    • Transfer starwheels are in an alternating relationship with the main turrets, with gears arranged to form an included angle of less than 170 degrees.
    • The machine is capable of necking at least 3000 cans per minute.
    • A "stroke length between the pusher assembly and the die is at least 1.50 inches."

U.S. Patent No. 7,770,425 - “Container Manufacturing Process Having Front-End Winder Assembly”

Technology Synopsis

This patent addresses an operator-focused problem. Conventional machines had manual adjustment winders located at the rear, making it difficult for an operator to both turn the winder and observe the effect at the front of the machine. The invention is a winder assembly with a shaft extending to the front of the machine, allowing a single operator to safely and easily make manual adjustments while viewing the components being positioned. (’425 Patent, col. 1:41-55; col. 2:4-13).

Asserted Claims

Independent claims 1 and 21 (Compl. ¶67-69).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that one of the identical features copied by Defendant was "a hand-winder located at the front of the machine instead of the rear" (Compl. ¶32).

U.S. Patent No. 10,751,784 - “High Speed Necking Configuration”

Technology Synopsis

This patent is part of the same family as the ’982 and ’570 patents and addresses the same general problem of high-speed can necking. The claims of this patent add a specific functional limitation, reciting that the inner surface of the die's throat portion is "adapted for enhancing concentricity of the can body relative to the die," and require a longer stroke distance of 1.75 inches. (’784 Patent, col. 8:15-19; Compl. ¶77(g)).

Asserted Claims

Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶77).

Accused Features

The infringement allegations target the same overall high-speed configuration of THE BELVAC, including the sawtooth turret arrangement, die stroke, and die design, alleging these features enhance can concentricity (Compl. ¶32, ¶77).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused product is the "THE BELVAC" multi-stage, horizontal necking machine (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that THE BELVAC was launched in 2010 to compete directly with Plaintiff's CMB3400 machine (Compl. ¶31-32). It is alleged to incorporate the same key technological features, including a "staggered 'sawtooth' arrangement" of rotating turrets, a "longer die stroke," "deeper die tools," and a front-mounted hand-winder (Compl. ¶32).
  • The complaint cites Belvac's own marketing materials, which allegedly state THE BELVAC achieves speeds of 3600 containers per minute due to "a larger working arc," a "50.3 millimeter die stroke," and a "270 degree working duration" (Compl. ¶33).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'982 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a horizontal beverage can necking machine assembly for forming necked beverage can bodies... THE BELVAC necker is a horizontal beverage can necking machine assembly for forming necked beverage can bodies. ¶46a col. 9:48-51
multiple horizontal necking stages adapted for necking at least 3000 beverage can bodies per minute... THE BELVAC necker has multiple horizontal necking stages and is advertised as reaching speeds of 3600 containers per minute. ¶46b, ¶33 col. 9:52-56
the longitudinal centers of the adjacent necking stages [form] an included angle with the longitudinal center of a transfer starwheel... of no more than 170 degrees. The sawtooth arrangement of THE BELVAC results in an included angle of no more than 170 degrees, creating a larger working arc. ¶46c, ¶32-33 col. 10:1-6
each one of the necking stages including a main turret that includes: a main turret shaft, a main turret starwheel... and a main gear mounted on the main turret shaft... Each necking stage of THE BELVAC includes a main turret with a shaft, starwheel, and main gear. ¶46d col. 10:7-12
each one of the pockets... having a necking die at one end thereof and a pad on an opposing end. Each pocket of THE BELVAC's starwheels has a necking die and a pad. ¶46e col. 10:13-15
each necking die of each one of the necking stages includes: a throat portion that is at least 0.125 inches long... THE BELVAC uses deep die tools, which include a throat portion of the required length. ¶46f, ¶32 col. 10:16-22
...in the first configuration the pad is spaced apart from the necking die by a first distance, in the second configuration the pad is spaced apart from the necking die by a second distance that is at least 1.5 inches less than the first distance. THE BELVAC has a die stroke of 50.3mm (approx. 1.98 inches), which is greater than the required 1.5 inches. ¶46g, ¶33 col. 10:23-31
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint preemptively addresses an argument from Belvac that its main gear is not "mounted on the main turret shaft" but is instead "coupled... using a cantilevered configuration" (Compl. ¶48). The dispute may turn on whether "mounted on" requires a specific type of direct attachment or can be read more broadly to include a cantilevered coupling.
    • Technical Questions: A central question, related to indirect infringement, will be whether the accused machine meets the limitations requiring a specific "necking die" if, as Belvac allegedly argues, it "does not supply dies for the Belvac necking machines" for a majority of customers (Compl. ¶49).

'570 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a horizontal can necking machine assembly. THE BELVAC is a horizontal can necking machine assembly. ¶56a col. 7:23-24
plural main turrets, each... including a main turret shaft, a main gear mounted proximate to an end of the main turret shaft, a pusher assembly, and a die. THE BELVAC includes multiple main turrets, each with a shaft, gear, pusher, and die. ¶56b col. 7:25-29
the die including... a throat portion... at least 0.125 inches long... The dies used with THE BELVAC have a throat portion of the required length. ¶56e col. 7:42-49
plural transfer starwheels located in an alternating relationship with the main turrets... [with gears forming] an included angle of less than 170 degrees... THE BELVAC uses a "sawtooth" arrangement of turrets and starwheels, creating an angle of less than 170 degrees and a larger working arc. ¶56f, ¶32-33 col. 8:1-8
...the main turrets and transfer starwheels are capable of operating to neck and move at least 3000 cans per minute... THE BELVAC is advertised as being capable of reaching speeds of 3600 cans per minute. ¶56g, ¶33 col. 8:10-12
...a stroke length between the pusher assembly and the die is at least 1.50 inches. THE BELVAC is advertised as having a 50.3mm (approx. 1.98 inch) die stroke, which exceeds the 1.50-inch requirement. ¶56g, ¶33 col. 8:12-14
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: As with the '982 Patent, a dispute exists over the meaning of "mounted proximate to an end of the main turret shaft" versus Belvac's "cantilevered configuration" (Compl. ¶59).
    • Technical Questions: The complaint flags a key dispute over the term "stroke length between the pusher assembly and the die" (Compl. ¶58). Belvac allegedly argues this length is zero because "the can remains stationary while the die moves onto the can." The case may explore whether this relative motion satisfies the claim limitation, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "mounted on" (’982 Patent) / "mounted proximate to" (’570 Patent)

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the complaint alleges Belvac argues its gear is not "mounted on" the shaft but is instead coupled via a "cantilevered configuration" (Compl. ¶48, ¶59). The infringement analysis for both the ’982 and ’570 patents hinges on whether Belvac’s design falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if there is a literal distinction in the method of attachment.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents' abstracts and summaries focus on the overall geometric arrangement and its effect on speed and angular range, suggesting the precise method of mounting the gear may be less important than its functional position. The specification repeatedly refers to the gear being "mounted on" or "mounted proximate to" the shaft without providing a specific definition, which may support an interpretation covering any functional attachment. (’982 Patent, Abstract; ’570 Patent, Abstract).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures, such as Figure 2 in the '982, '570, and '784 patents, depict the gear (46) at the very end of the shaft (38). A party could argue this specific embodiment limits the term to a configuration where the gear is directly affixed to the shaft, as opposed to being offset or supported by a cantilever structure.

  • The Term: "stroke length between the pusher assembly and the die" (’570 Patent)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central because Belvac allegedly contends the stroke length in its machine is zero, as the die moves toward a stationary can, rather than the can moving into the die (Compl. ¶58). The viability of the infringement claim for the '570 patent may depend on whether "stroke length" refers to the absolute movement of the pusher or the relative movement between the operative components.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's focus is on the operational benefit of a long stroke: providing more time for the can to be centered in the die, which enhances concentricity. Plaintiff may argue that the relative motion between the die and can achieves this same functional purpose, regardless of which component is stationary, supporting a broader interpretation or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The specification states "the pusher ram 30 may have a stroke length relative to the die 34 of at least 1.5 inches" (’570 Patent, col. 5:29-31), which could be interpreted as focusing on the relative distance.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description describes the necking operation as the "pusher ram to push the can into the die tooling" and the can body being "moved up into die 34" (’570 Patent, col. 4:58-65). A defendant could argue this language implies movement of the can/pusher assembly, not the die, and therefore the "stroke length" must refer to the travel distance of that specific assembly.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint makes detailed allegations of induced and contributory infringement for all four patents. It alleges that Belvac sells THE BELVAC necker, often without the specialized dies, but encourages and instructs its customers (through marketing materials, its website, and videos) to install and use "full piloted dies" that, when combined with the machine, perform the patented process and create the patented assembly. This conduct is alleged to occur with knowledge of the patents and with the intent to cause infringement. (Compl. ¶49, ¶60, ¶69-70, ¶79).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement for all four asserted patents. The basis is alleged pre-suit knowledge based on direct notice from Crown. Crown claims it notified Belvac of the ’570 and ’425 patents in July 2017 (Compl. ¶61, ¶71), of the application leading to the ’982 patent on January 31, 2018 (Compl. ¶36), and of the ’982 and ’784 patents upon their issuance (Compl. ¶50, ¶80). The complaint alleges Belvac continued to sell the accused machines despite this knowledge.

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

  • A central issue will be one of claim construction: does the term "mounted on" (or "mounted proximate to") the turret shaft require a specific type of direct physical attachment, or can it be construed to cover the "cantilevered configuration" allegedly used in the accused machine? The outcome of this definitional dispute could determine literal infringement for key patents.
  • A key question of technical interpretation will arise for the ’570 patent: does the limitation requiring a "stroke length between the pusher assembly and the die" refer to the absolute travel of the pusher, or the relative motion between the two components? The court will need to decide if moving the die towards a stationary can is functionally and legally equivalent to pushing the can into a stationary die.
  • The case will likely feature a significant focus on indirect infringement. A primary evidentiary question will be whether Crown can prove that Belvac, by selling a machine without the patented dies, specifically intended for its customers to combine it with those dies to perform the infringing method, particularly given that the dies are a critical component for the machine's operation.