Heineken N.V. v. Anheuser-Busch InBev S.A.

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-01663
• Patent #: 9,944,453
• Filed: September 6, 2018
• Petitioner(s): HEINEKEN N.V.
• Patent Owner(s): ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV S.A.
• Challenged Claims: 1-7

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Integrally Blow-Molded Dispensing Bag-in-Container
• Brief Description: The ’453 patent relates to the design and manufacturing of blow-molded, bag-in-container devices for dispensing beverages. The invention describes a container with a collapsible inner bag and a rigid outer container, both made from the same polymer, which are formed from a multilayer preform and are in direct contact to form an interface that allows delamination when pressurized gas is introduced between the layers.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground I: 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 elements of independent claim 1. Butterworth taught an integrally blow-molded, two-layer bag-in-container where both layers could be made of the same polymer, such as PET. It further disclosed vents in the neck region between the layers to facilitate dispensing. However, Butterworth proposed dispensing the liquid by applying a vacuum to the mouth of the inner bag, a method Petitioner contended would degrade the quality of oxygen-sensitive beverages like beer.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would be motivated to modify Butterworth’s system by incorporating the pressurized gas dispensing taught by Beyens and/or Schmidt. This modification would solve the known problem of product degradation caused by vacuum dispensing, as Beyens and Schmidt both teach applying pressurized gas to the interface between the layers to collapse the inner bag, preserving the beverage's quality.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a reasonable expectation of success in making this combination. Applying positive pressure to the interlayer space is a well-understood and straightforward alternative to applying negative pressure (a vacuum) to the inner bag to achieve the same mechanical result of dispensing the liquid.
  • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that the Patent Owner overcame an earlier rejection over Butterworth during prosecution only by submitting a factually incorrect inventor declaration arguing Butterworth was not enabling.

Ground II: 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 a two-layer dispensing container made from a preform, where both layers are preferably PET. Brady’s container included a collapsible inner layer and a vent for introducing pressurized gas (e.g., carbon dioxide) between the layers to dispense the contents. The primary difference from the challenged claims was that Brady’s vent was located at the bottom of the container, not in the neck region.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Takakusagi taught that it was known and advantageous to place vents in the neck region of a container to make them less conspicuous and for other practical reasons. A POSA would be motivated to combine Brady's container with Takakusagi's teaching by relocating the vent from the bottom to the neck region, representing a simple design choice to achieve a more conventional and practical configuration.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination involved a predictable substitution of one known vent location for another to achieve a known benefit. A POSA would expect this modification to work without any undue experimentation.

Ground III: Claims 1-7 are obvious over Beyens in combination with Keisuke and/or Richter.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Beyens (European Patent Application 0389191), Keisuke (Japanese Patent Application Publication 6-39906), and Richter (Patent 5,242,085).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Beyens disclosed a two-layer container system for dispensing beverages using a source of pressurized gas introduced into the space between a flexible inner bag and an outer container. Beyens taught the outer container could be made of PET but did not explicitly teach that the container was integrally blow-molded or that both layers were made of the same polymer.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Keisuke and Richter both taught manufacturing multilayer containers via integral blow-molding and specifically disclosed using the same polymer (PET) for both inner and outer layers. A POSA would be motivated to apply the efficient manufacturing methods and desirable material choices of Keisuke and Richter to the dispensing system of Beyens to reduce manufacturing costs, improve recyclability, and benefit from PET's known performance characteristics (e.g., pressure resistance, gas barrier).
  • Expectation of Success: A POSA would reasonably expect success, as integral blow-molding was a common, cost-effective method for producing multilayer plastic containers. Using PET for both layers was a known practice for creating recyclable containers with beneficial properties suitable for dispensing beverages.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 1-7 over Keisuke in combination with Beyens and/or Schmidt. This ground relied on similar logic, starting with Keisuke's integrally blow-molded, same-polymer container and modifying it to include the pressurized gas dispensing system taught by Beyens and/or Schmidt.

4. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review of claims 1-7 of Patent 9,944,453 and cancellation of those claims as unpatentable.