Luv N' Care Ltd v. Munchkin Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2015-00872
• Patent #: 8,739,993
• Filed: March 11, 2015
• Petitioner(s): Luv N' Care, Ltd.
• Patent Owner(s): Munchkin, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-7

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Container for Spillproof Container Assemblies
• Brief Description: The ’993 patent discloses a container for a spillproof drinking assembly. The container body features a threaded neck, an outward-extending shoulder below the neck, a platform on the shoulder, and at least one "snap projection" extending upward from the platform, designed to interact with a corresponding cap.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-7 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Whiteman.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Whiteman (Patent 3,101,856).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Whiteman, a 1963 patent for a "Bottle Closure," discloses every element of the challenged claims. Whiteman’s container is shown with a threaded neck (15), a shoulder portion (11) extending radially outward below the neck, and a top annular surface (11a) on the shoulder that constitutes the claimed "platform." The "saw-tooth protrusions or spurs" (12) on this surface were asserted to be the claimed "snap projection" extending to a predetermined height. Dependent claims were allegedly met by Whiteman’s disclosure of a flat platform, radially oriented spurs, a gap between the spurs and the neck, and a wedge shape constituting a "snap ridge."
  • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that even if the term "snap projection" requires an audible sound (which is not claimed), Whiteman teaches that indentations on a cap "slip over the top of the protrusions," which would produce an audible snap.

Ground 2: Claims 1-7 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Whiteman alone or in view of Atkins.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Whiteman (Patent 3,101,856), Atkins (Patent 4,230,232).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Whiteman alone renders the claims obvious for the same reasons it anticipates them. Alternatively, if Whiteman is found not to teach a "snap projection" that produces an audible sound, this feature is explicitly taught by Atkins. Atkins discloses ridges (7) that interact with notches (9) on a cap to create "a satisfyingly positive 'snap' to reassure the user that he has fully sealed the bottle."
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine the teachings by substituting Whiteman's spurs with Atkins' ridges. The motivation was to incorporate the known advantage of providing audible feedback to a user, confirming that the cap is fully and securely sealed. This was presented as a simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve a predictable result.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a high expectation of success in making this substitution, as both references relate to container closure mechanisms and the interaction of projections on a container with features on a cap is a well-understood mechanical principle.

Ground 3: Claims 1-7 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Atkins.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Atkins (Patent 4,230,232).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Atkins, which discloses a "Bottle with Closure Cap," independently anticipates all limitations. Atkins shows a bottle with a threaded neck (3), a shoulder (8) below the neck, and a flat top surface of the shoulder that serves as a platform. The "protuberances" (7) in the form of ridges on the shoulder were identified as the claimed "snap projection." Petitioner asserted that these ridges extend to a predetermined height necessary for their function, are disposed on the upper surface of the shoulder, are substantially flat, extend radially, and comprise a "snap ridge," thereby meeting the limitations of all challenged claims.
  • Key Aspects: The petition highlighted that Atkins explicitly describes the function of its protuberances as creating an audible and tactile "snap" when engaging the cap, directly teaching a key feature of the ’993 patent.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional anticipation and obviousness challenges. These included grounds that claims 1-7 are anticipated by Fitjer (Patent 5,141,347), Montgomery (Patent 3,894,647), and Dujardin (Patent 5,992,656), and that claims 1-6 are anticipated by Ahrens (Patent 4,691,833). Each of these primary references was also asserted in obviousness combinations with other art to cure any perceived deficiencies.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner argued for the broadest reasonable interpretation of several key terms, asserting they were critical to the anticipation and obviousness analyses.

• "Shoulder": Proposed as "a part with a suddenly increased width or thickness (compared to its neighboring structure)." This construction, based on a technical dictionary, was argued to be broad enough to read on the structures in the prior art that show an abrupt outward flare below the container neck.
• "Platform": Proposed as "a raised level surface." Petitioner argued this plain and ordinary meaning does not require the platform to be a structure separate from the shoulder itself, but can simply be the top surface of the shoulder.
• "Snap Projection": Proposed as "any type of single or multiple projections, including ridges, bumps, or posts extending from the platform." Crucially, Petitioner argued this term does not require the generation of an audible sound, as no such limitation is recited in the claims. This contrasts with the Patent Owner's apparent litigation position and is central to Petitioner's anticipation arguments where an audible sound may not be explicitly described.
• "Snap Ridge" (Claim 7): Proposed as "a long, narrow, raised strip or elevation." This construction, based on a dictionary definition, was argued to be broad and descriptive of the physical shape of projections shown in multiple prior art references.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-7 of Patent 8,739,993 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103.