PTAB

IPR2018-01669

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

Log In

1. Case Identification

  • Case #: IPR2018-01669
  • Patent #: 9,517,876
  • Filed: September 6, 2018
  • Petitioner(s): Heineken N.V. (Real Parties-in-Interest: Heineken International B.V., Heineken N.V., Heineken USA Inc, Heineken Holding N.V., Heineken Beer Systems B.V., Heineken Brouwerijen B.V., Heineken Export Americas B.V., Heineken Global Procurement B.V.)
  • Patent Owner(s): Anheuser-Busch InBev S.A.
  • Challenged Claims: 1-5

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Two-Layer Integrally Blow-Molded Dispensing Device and a Preform Therefor
  • Brief Description: The ’876 patent relates to a two-layer, integrally blow-molded "bag-in-container" dispensing device. Its asserted novelty lies in fabricating both the outer rigid container and the inner collapsible bag from the same polymer, such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET), to simplify the manufacturing process and improve recyclability.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground I: 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 taught nearly all limitations of the challenged claims. Specifically, Butterworth disclosed a two-layer, integrally blow-molded dispensing container made from a preform with separate inner and outer parts fitted together. It taught that both layers are preferably made of PET, forming a collapsible inner bag suitable for holding liquids and an outer container with a neck, body, and mouth. The layers are adjacent and releasably adhered, and Butterworth explicitly disclosed vents in the neck region to allow air to flow between the layers. The single element missing from Butterworth was a "source of pressurized gas removably attached to the vent."
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Butterworth taught dispensing the liquid by applying a vacuum to the container's mouth, which would expose the beverage to the atmosphere. Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to replace this vacuum method with a positive pressure system as taught by both Beyens and Schmidt. For dispensing beverages like beer, preserving freshness and carbonation is critical. Beyens and Schmidt both taught applying pressurized gas between the container layers to dispense the contents, a well-known method that avoids degrading the beverage quality.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because applying positive pressure simply replaces one known method of creating a pressure differential (vacuum) with another (pressurization) to achieve the same mechanical result of collapsing the inner bag.

Ground II: 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 taught a two-layer, integrally blow-molded container where both layers are preferably PET. Brady's container featured a thin, collapsible inner bag and a vent (aperture) for introducing pressurized gas, such as carbon dioxide, between the layers to dispense the contents. However, Petitioner argued Brady's vent was located at the container's base, not the neck, and may not have explicitly taught that the layers form a "releasably adhered" interface. Takakusagi was introduced to remedy these alleged deficiencies.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Takakusagi taught a two-layer container where the layers "freely separate" and, critically, disclosed placing "atmosphere introduction holes" (vents) in the neck region. Takakusagi explained that placing vents near the mouth was known in the art for practical reasons and to make them less conspicuous. Therefore, a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Brady’s design by relocating the vent from the base to the neck, as suggested by Takakusagi, and ensuring the layers were freely separable as also taught by Takakusagi.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Combining these teachings was presented as a predictable substitution of one known feature for another to gain a known advantage (e.g., improved aesthetics or practicality of vent placement).

Ground III: Claims 1-5 are obvious over Beyens in combination with Keisuke and/or Richter

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

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Beyens disclosed the general concept of the invention: a two-layer container for dispensing beverages (like beer) where pressurized gas is introduced between a plastic outer container (disclosed as PET) and a flexible inner bag to dispense the liquid. The vent is in the neck region. However, Beyens did not explicitly teach that the container was integrally blow-molded from a preform or that the inner bag was also made of PET. Keisuke and Richter were cited to supply these missing elements, as both taught integrally blow-molded, multi-layer PET containers with releasable interfaces.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have been motivated to create the dispensing system of Beyens using the more efficient and cost-effective integral blow-molding manufacturing process taught by Keisuke and Richter. It would have been further obvious to make both layers from PET, as taught by the secondary references, to benefit from PET’s known properties (strength, clarity, gas barrier) and to simplify recycling by using a single material.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have reasonably expected to successfully apply a common manufacturing process (integral blow-molding) and a standard industry material (PET) to the known beverage dispensing system of Beyens.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground IV) against claims 1-5 based on Keisuke in combination with Beyens and/or Schmidt, which relied on similar design modification theories and combinations of the same core prior art references.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-5 of Patent 9,517,876 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.