PTAB

IPR2015-01128

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Containers and Methods for Dispensing Multiple Doses of a Concentrated Liquid, and Shelf Stable Concentrated Liquids
  • Brief Description: The ’299 patent is directed to shelf-stable, liquid beverage concentrates containing water, acid, a buffer, and flavoring. The invention addresses the challenge of creating a low pH concentrate that retains flavor stability and palatability for consumers.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1-5 and 7-22 under 35 U.S.C. §102 over Ackilli

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ackilli (International Publication No. WO 2006/102435).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Ackilli, which was not before the Examiner, discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Ackilli teaches liquid flavoring concentrates comprising a densifier (e.g., citric acid), a buffer (e.g., potassium citrate), a solvent (water), and flavoring. Petitioner contended that Ackilli’s disclosed preferred ranges for these components (e.g., acid at 5-20 wt.%, buffer at 2-5 wt.%, water at 35-95 wt.%) substantially overlap or fall within the ranges recited in independent claim 1.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner asserted that the claimed pH range of 1.9 to 2.4, a key limitation added during prosecution to overcome prior art, is an inherent property of Ackilli’s disclosed compositions. It argued that because Ackilli’s component ranges overlap with the ranges described in the ’299 patent as resulting in the claimed pH, Ackilli’s compositions would inherently exhibit that pH.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Ackilli in view of Stevens ’486

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ackilli (WO 2006/102435) and Stevens ’486 (Patent 2,764,486).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Ackilli provides the basic formulation for a synthetic liquid beverage concentrate. Stevens ’486, a 1956 patent directed to stabilizing natural citrus juice concentrates, discloses beverage bases with high acid content (up to 25% citric acid) and buffers (e.g., sodium citrate) to achieve a desirable low pH of about 2.0-3.0 for improved stability and taste. For example, "Base A" in Stevens ’486 discloses a concentrate with 23.5% citric acid, 1.07% sodium citrate, and a pH of 2.34, falling squarely within the ’299 patent’s claimed ranges.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), seeking to improve the taste, palatability, and stability of an Ackilli-type concentrate, would combine its teachings with the known principles for low-pH concentrates from Stevens ’486. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Ackilli’s acid and buffer levels to match those taught by Stevens ’486 to achieve the known benefits of improved flavor and shelf-life associated with such formulations.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because combining the components was a predictable application of known techniques. Stevens ’486 explicitly teaches that its high-acid, buffered formulations result in a stable, palatable, low-pH concentrate, providing a clear roadmap for modifying Ackilli.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Ackilli in view of Stevens ’486 and Stevens ’864

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ackilli (WO 2006/102435), Stevens ’486 (Patent 2,764,486), and Stevens ’864 (Patent 1,955,864).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the combination of Ackilli and Stevens ’486 by adding Stevens ’864, which further reinforces the state of the art. Stevens ’864, from 1934, explicitly teaches using buffers like sodium and potassium citrate in high-acid fruit juices (up to 30% citric acid) to improve flavor, color, and taste by managing tartness. It discloses using buffer levels as low as 0.2%, demonstrating that a POSITA was long aware of how to formulate high acid-to-buffer ratio concentrates.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation is the same as in Ground 2—improving the organoleptic properties and stability of a synthetic concentrate. Stevens ’864 provides additional, foundational knowledge that adding a buffer to a high-acid concentrate was a well-established technique to improve the final beverage. A POSITA would combine these references to create a stable, palatable, and commercially viable beverage concentrate using predictable components and methods.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner argued this combination overcomes the patentee's arguments during prosecution that low-pH, high-acidity concentrates were unexpected. Stevens ’486 and Stevens ’864 explicitly state that such formulations were known to improve taste and stability, directly contradicting the patentee’s assertions of unexpected results.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including Ackilli in view of general knowledge in the art (Ground 2) and Ackilli in view of Stevens ’864 alone (Ground 4). These grounds relied on the same core rationale that a POSITA would modify Ackilli’s base formula using well-known principles of beverage chemistry to achieve improved stability and taste.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Having a pH of about 1.9 to about 2.4": Petitioner argued this phrase should be construed to mean a pH of 1.9 to 2.4 when rounded to two significant figures. This construction was based on prosecution history estoppel; the patentee amended the claims from a broader range (up to 3.0) to this specific range to overcome the Braun reference, which disclosed a pH of 2.5. Petitioner contended the patentee surrendered any claim scope that would round to 2.5, making this construction necessary to preserve the distinction made during prosecution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-22 of the ’299 patent as unpatentable.