PTAB

IPR2018-01663

Heineken NV v. Anheuser Busch InBev SA

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Integrally blow-moulded dispensing bag-in-container, and preform for making same
  • Brief Description: The ’453 patent discloses an integrally blow-molded "bag-in-container" device for dispensing beverages. The key asserted feature is that both the collapsible inner bag and the rigid outer container are comprised of the same polymer, such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and are formed from a multilayer preform.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-7 are obvious over Butterworth in combination with Beyens and/or Schmidt.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Butterworth (WO 91/08099), Beyens (European Patent Application 0389191), and Schmidt (Patent 5,301,838).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Butterworth disclosed nearly all limitations of claim 1. Butterworth taught an integrally blow-molded, two-layer dispensing container with a collapsible, single-layer inner bag and a single-layer outer container. It further disclosed that the inner and outer layers are in direct contact, are typically made of the same polymer (PET), and include vents in the neck region that open to the atmosphere. Butterworth’s vents allow air to enter between the layers to facilitate collapse of the inner bag when a vacuum is applied to its mouth. Petitioner contended the only missing element was a releasably attached source of pressurized gas.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to modify Butterworth’s dispensing mechanism. Butterworth’s use of a vacuum would bring the beverage into contact with the atmosphere, degrading the quality, carbonation, and flavor of sensitive liquids like beer. Beyens and Schmidt both taught the known alternative of using a source of pressurized gas, introduced between the layers, to create the same pressure differential and dispense the beverage without exposing it to ambient air. A POSITA would combine these teachings to improve the preservation of the beverage, a critical consideration in the field.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in replacing Butterworth's vacuum-based dispensing with the pressurized gas systems of Beyens or Schmidt. This substitution involved applying a well-understood pressure source to a known vent on a standard container type to achieve the predictable result of dispensing liquid while maintaining its quality.

Ground 2: Claims 1-7 are obvious over Brady in combination with Takakusagi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Brady (Patent 6,066,287) and Takakusagi (Japanese Patent Application Publication H6-345069).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Brady disclosed an integrally blow-molded, two-layer bag-in-container where both layers are preferably made of PET. Brady’s container included a collapsible inner bag, a source of pressurized gas (e.g., carbon dioxide) introduced between the layers to dispense the contents, and a vent for introducing the gas. Petitioner argued that Brady taught all limitations of claim 1 except for locating the vent specifically in the neck region; Brady disclosed its vent at the bottom of the container.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Brady with Takakusagi to optimize the vent location. Takakusagi explicitly taught that disposing a vent in the neck region of a container was a known and desirable design choice to make the vent less conspicuous. Therefore, a POSITA would have been motivated by this conventional design practice to relocate the vent in Brady's device from the bottom to the neck for improved aesthetics and practicality, resulting in the claimed invention. For claims requiring a plurality of vents (claims 4-5), Takakusagi further taught using multiple vents to ensure reliable airflow, providing the motivation to modify Brady accordingly.
    • Expectation of Success: Modifying the location of a vent from the bottom to the neck is a simple and predictable design choice. A POSITA would expect that such a relocation, as suggested by Takakusagi, would function as intended in Brady’s container without any undue experimentation.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges for claims 1-7 over Beyens in combination with Keisuke and/or Richter (Ground III) and over Keisuke in combination with Beyens and/or Schmidt (Ground IV). These grounds relied on similar principles, arguing that a POSITA would have been motivated to produce the beverage containers of Beyens or Keisuke via integral blow-molding and modify them to use the same polymer for both layers for reasons of cost, recyclability, and processing efficiency, as taught by the secondary references.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-7 of the ’453 patent as unpatentable.