Dynamic DrInkware LLC v. National Graphics Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2013-00131
• Patent #: 6,635,196
• Filed: February 1, 2013
• Petitioner(s): Dynamic Drinkware LLC
• Patent Owner(s): National Graphics, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1, 8, 12, and 15

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Molded Articles Having a Surface Bearing a Lenticular Image
• Brief Description: The ’196 patent discloses methods for fabricating molded plastic articles, such as cups, having an integrated lenticular image. The claimed method involves inserting a pre-formed lenticular image into a mold cavity and then injecting molten plastic to form the article, bonding the image to its surface in the process.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Raymond References - Claims 1, 8, 12, and 15 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Raymond et al.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Raymond (Application # 2004/0157011) and Raymond (Patent 7,153,555).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the Raymond references, which were not considered during prosecution and share a common specification, disclose every limitation of the challenged claims. Raymond teaches a method of fabricating plastic objects with a bonded lenticular lens sheet or insert. This method includes providing a mold with a cavity, inserting the lenticular image (comprising a lens and interlaced image segments), and injecting a plastic resin under high heat and pressure. Crucially, Petitioner asserted that Raymond’s explicit teaching of a process that bonds the lenticular material "without damaging the lenticular lens material" and its disclosure of blocking molten plastic from flowing over optical ridges meets the key limitation of introducing molten plastic at a temperature, pressure, and turbulence that "minimizes any distortion to the lenticular lens and any degradation to the interlaced image."

Ground 2: Obviousness over In-Mold Labeling Art - Claims 1, 8, 12, and 15 are obvious over Rosenthal in view of Brandt, Bagnall, Hirata, Kinoshita, and/or Mizukoshi.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Rosenthal (Patent 5,642,226), Brandt (Patent 3,108,850), Bagnall (Patent 4,710,338), Hirata (Patent 5,193,711), Kinoshita (Patent 5,266,377), and Mizukoshi (Patent 5,368,798).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that the primary reference, Rosenthal, discloses the core inventive concept: using a thin, printed lenticular film with a container. The secondary references (Brandt, Bagnall, et al.) were presented as evidence that the specific manufacturing process steps were well-known in the art of in-mold labeling. Collectively, these references teach providing a mold with a cavity, inserting a label (or blank), and injecting molten thermoplastic material. The references also disclose techniques for controlling the injection process—such as managing temperature, pressure, and resin flow paths—to force the label against the mold wall and ensure proper bonding without causing wrinkles or deformation. Petitioner argued that applying these conventional in-mold labeling techniques to the lenticular film taught by Rosenthal renders the claimed methods obvious.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of Rosenthal with the in-mold labeling methods of the secondary references because they share the common goal of molding labels or images into a plastic object. Applying known and reliable in-mold labeling processes to the specific type of lenticular label disclosed by Rosenthal was presented as a predictable and logical design choice to achieve an integrally molded lenticular article.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in this combination. The secondary references provide detailed and established methods for controlling plastic flow to prevent label damage during in-molding processes. These teachings directly address the central challenge of the claimed invention, providing a clear and predictable path to successfully integrating a lenticular image into a molded article without distortion or degradation.

4. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 8, 12, and 15 of the ’196 patent as unpatentable.