PTAB

IPR2018-01669

Heineken NV v. Anheuser Busch InBev SA

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Blow-Moulded Dispensing Device
  • Brief Description: The ’876 patent discloses an integrally blow-molded, two-layer "bag-in-container" dispensing device, primarily for beverages. The invention focuses on constructing both the inner collapsible bag and the outer rigid container from the same polymer, such as PET, to simplify manufacturing and improve recyclability.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-5 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. Specifically, Butterworth taught an integrally blow-molded, two-layer dispensing device made from a preform with separate inner and outer parts fitted together. It disclosed that both layers could be made of PET, the inner layer was collapsible, the layers were releasably adhered, and vents were provided in the neck region to allow airflow between the layers. The only element Petitioner argued was missing from Butterworth was a "source of pressurized gas removably attached to the vent."
    • Motivation to Combine: Butterworth taught dispensing liquid by applying a vacuum to the mouth of the inner bag. Petitioner contended that applying a vacuum would bring the beverage into contact with the atmosphere, degrading its quality, particularly for carbonated beverages like beer. Beyens and Schmidt both taught dispensing beverages from similar bag-in-container systems by attaching a removable source of pressurized gas to a vent between the layers. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) seeking to improve the dispensing method of Butterworth would combine its container with the pressurized gas system of Beyens or Schmidt to preserve the beverage's freshness and quality, a known and superior alternative to using a vacuum.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a clear expectation of success, as applying positive pressure to the space between the layers to collapse the inner bag achieves the same pressure differential as applying a vacuum to the inner bag, but without degrading the product. This was a well-understood principle in the field of beverage dispensing.

Ground 2: Claims 1-5 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 PET bag-in-container formed by integrally blow-molding a preform, a collapsible inner bag, and a source of pressurized gas introduced through a vent to dispense the contents. Petitioner argued Brady inherently taught that the inner and outer layers were in direct contact and releasably adhered. To the extent that Brady did not explicitly disclose this or the placement of the vent in the neck region, Takakusagi supplied these teachings. Takakusagi explicitly described a two-layer container where the layers "freely separate" and taught placing "atmosphere introduction holes" (vents) in the neck region.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of Takakusagi with Brady to arrive at the claimed invention. If Brady's layers were not considered "releasably adhered," a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Takakusagi's teaching of freely separable layers to ensure proper dispensing. Furthermore, Takakusagi taught placing vents in the neck region for practical reasons, such as making them less conspicuous. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Brady’s bottom-placed vent with Takakusagi’s neck-placed vent for improved design and practicality.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining these known features—a container design from Brady with layer separation and vent placement techniques from Takakusagi—involved the application of known technologies to achieve predictable results.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges against claims 1-5 based on Beyens in combination with Keisuke and/or Richter, and Keisuke in combination with Beyens and/or Schmidt. These grounds relied on similar rationales, combining a primary reference teaching a bag-in-container with secondary references teaching integral blow-molding or the use of a pressurized gas source.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 1-5 of the ’876 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.