PTAB

IPR2015-01131

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 ’557 patent discloses a packaged, flavored liquid beverage concentrate. The invention combines a specific container, such as a flexible body with a self-sealing valve, with a shelf-stable, low-pH liquid concentrate formulated with specific weight-percentage ranges of water, acid, buffer, and flavoring.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1-29 over Lohrman, Ackilli, and Stevens

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lohrman (Patent 5,632,420), Ackilli (International Publication No. WO 2006/102435), Stevens ’486 (Patent 2,764,486), and Stevens ’864 (Patent 1,955,864).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the prior art collectively disclosed every element of the challenged claims, rendering them obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The argument separated the container elements from the concentrate formulation.
      • Container Disclosures (Lohrman): Petitioner asserted that Lohrman taught all physical container elements recited in independent claims 1, 15, and 23. Lohrman disclosed a flexible, resilient dispensing package with a self-sealing valve designed to dispense "foodstuffs" without leaking. The container included a squeezable body, a neck with an outlet, and a lid, including variations with a hinged flip-top cap. Petitioner contended these features met all the structural limitations of the claimed container.
      • Concentrate Disclosures (Ackilli & Stevens): Petitioner argued that the combination of Ackilli and the two Stevens patents made the claimed concentrate formulation obvious. Ackilli disclosed modern liquid flavoring concentrates with components like water, acid (e.g., citric acid), buffer (e.g., potassium citrate), and flavoring in amounts that overlapped with the ranges in the ’557 patent. The Stevens patents, particularly Stevens ’486 from the 1950s, taught that low-pH, highly acidic citrus concentrates were well-known for achieving shelf stability and palatability. Crucially, an exemplary formulation in Stevens ’486 (Base A) contained 23.5% citric acid and a sodium citrate buffer, resulting in a pH of 2.34, which falls squarely within the patent’s claimed range of "about 1.9 to about 2.4." Stevens ’864 further reinforced the well-established practice of using buffers to manage the taste of highly acidic beverage concentrates.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, tasked with creating a packaged, shelf-stable liquid beverage concentrate with good flavor, would combine the teachings of the references. It would have been obvious to package a known type of stable, low-pH concentrate (as taught by Ackilli and Stevens) in a known type of convenient, leak-proof dispensing container suitable for foodstuffs (as taught by Lohrman). The motivation was simply to use a suitable, established container for a known and desirable type of product, which represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in making the combination. No new or unexpected results would arise from placing a known liquid concentrate formulation into a container designed for dispensing such liquids. The properties of the container and the concentrate were well-understood, and their combination was a matter of routine design and formulation.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner highlighted that none of the cited prior art references were before the Patent Office during prosecution of the application leading to the ’557 patent, which it alleged received "virtually no substantive examination."

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Having a pH of about 1.9 to about 2.4": Petitioner argued this term must be construed as a strict range of 1.9 to 2.4, without the broadening effect of "about." This construction was based on prosecution history estoppel. During prosecution of a related patent, the patentee amended the claims from a broader range of "about 1.4 to about 3.0" to the narrower "about 1.9 to about 2.4" specifically to overcome a prior art reference (Braun) that disclosed a pH of 2.5. Petitioner asserted that the patentee surrendered the subject matter between pH 2.4 and 2.5 and cannot now recapture it. This construction is critical to the invalidity argument, as the 2.34 pH disclosed in Stevens ’486 falls within this narrowed range.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-29 of the ’557 patent as unpatentable.