PTAB

IPR2016-01875

Pacific Market Intl LLC v. Ignite USA LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Locking Mechanism for a Drinking Container
  • Brief Description: The ’267 patent discloses a locking mechanism for a drinking container lid. The mechanism features a button member that moves between a first (locked) position and a second (unlocked) position. In the locked position, a stop on the lid prevents the button member from being actuated inward to operate a seal assembly, while in the unlocked position, the button member is clear of the stop and can be pressed inward.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 10, 11, and 13 are anticipated and/or obvious over Milian.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Milian (Patent 6,601,735).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Milian, which discloses a locking fluid dispenser, teaches every element of the challenged claims. Milian’s rotatable “pusher” (2) was identified as the claimed “button member,” which moves in a first direction (rotation) from a locked position to an unlocked position. In Milian’s locked state, the pusher’s locking member (22) abuts a “locking bearing surface” (45)—the claimed “stop”—preventing downward actuation. After rotation to the unlocked state, the locking member aligns with a vertical duct (46), permitting downward movement in a second direction to operate a pump/valve (the “seal assembly”). For dependent claim 11, Milian’s “hard click” detent feature was argued to be a “button lock” that holds the pusher in the locked or unlocked position.
    • Key Aspects: A central contention for this ground was that the preamble of claim 10, which recites a “drinking container,” is a non-limiting statement of intended use and should not be given patentable weight. Petitioner asserted that even if the preamble were limiting, Milian’s disclosure of a dispenser mounted on a “receptacle” (6) for fluids, including food products, would satisfy the limitation.

Ground 2: Claims 10-20 are obvious over Albert in view of Milian.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Albert (Patent 3,972,443) and Milian (Patent 6,601,735).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative argument if the patent’s preamble were deemed limiting. Petitioner asserted that Albert teaches the basic elements of a drinking receptacle with a lid and a finger-operated valve, but it lacks a locking feature. Milian teaches a well-known locking mechanism for fluid dispensers that prevents accidental actuation. Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to incorporate Milian’s rotatable locking pusher mechanism onto the lid of Albert’s drinking container to actuate its existing valve assembly. In the proposed combination, Milian’s actuator rod and Albert’s valve shank would together form the claimed “manifold.”
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the references to solve a known problem. Albert expressly recognized the value of preventing beverage spillage from its container. Milian specifically addresses and solves this same problem of accidental actuation and spillage in the context of fluid dispensers, a field that includes food and beverage containers. A POSITA seeking to make Albert’s container spill-proof would have been motivated to implement a known locking solution like that taught in Milian.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued the combination would have been a simple substitution of one known element (a non-locking actuator) for another (Milian's locking actuator) to achieve the predictable result of a lockable, spill-proof container. The integration was described as straightforward, yielding no unexpected results.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Direction" and "Sliding": Petitioner proposed broad constructions for these terms, arguing they should not be limited to linear movement. It was argued that "direction" means "a line or course of movement," which could be rotational or arcuate. This construction was critical to mapping the rotational movement of Milian’s pusher (the first direction) to the claim language, as the ’267 patent itself suggests the button may be moved “in any direction,” including at an angle.
  • "Button Member": This term was construed to mean "a member with a bearing surface on which a force is exerted by a user," encompassing both linear and non-linear movement.
  • "Manifold": Petitioner proposed construing "manifold" as "a portion of the trigger assembly... which, when moved... operates a seal assembly." This construction supports the mapping of Milian's actuator rod and the combined actuator rod/valve shank in the primary obviousness ground to the claimed element.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 10-20 of the ’267 patent as unpatentable.