Trove Brands LLC v. Vista Outdoor Operations LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-00858
• Patent #: 8,905,252
• Filed: April 29, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Trove Brands, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Camelbak Products, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 5-7, 16-19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Drink Container with Closure Retention Mechanism
• Brief Description: The ’252 patent discloses a drink container with a removable cap assembly. The cap assembly includes a base, a drink spout, a removable closure, and a handle featuring a "closure retention mechanism" designed to hold the closure in a stowed position when it is removed from the spout.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 5-7 and 16-19 are anticipated by and/or obvious over Samartgis.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Samartgis (Patent 9,272,822).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Samartgis, which discloses an improved closure/dispensing means for a container, teaches every element of the challenged claims. Samartgis discloses a cap assembly with a base (main body), drink spout, a removable closure (flap member), and a handle (lever/carry member). Crucially, Petitioner asserted that the handle in Samartgis includes "lug members 15 and 16" that function as the claimed "closure retention mechanism." These lugs engage tracks on the closure to retain it in a "locking position" (i.e., a stowed position) when the user removes it from the spout. Petitioner contended these lugs are structurally equivalent to the "two or more spaced-apart tabs" identified as the structure for the means-plus-function claim term.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As an alternative to anticipation, Petitioner argued that to the extent any minor differences exist, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have found it obvious to modify Samartgis to arrive at the claimed invention. The motivation would stem from predictable design choices and the inherent suggestions within Samartgis itself.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success as any modification would involve applying known techniques to a known device to achieve predictable results.

Ground 2: Claims 5-7, 16, and 19 are anticipated by and/or obvious over Leoncavallo.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Leoncavallo (Patent 7,753,240).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Leoncavallo discloses a drink container cap assembly that meets all limitations of the challenged claims. Leoncavallo’s cap assembly includes a base, spout, a closure (flip cap), and a handle (loop member). Petitioner contended that the handle's "detents 90" constitute the claimed "closure retention mechanism." These detents frictionally engage connector members on the flip cap as it is moved to an open position, thereby retaining the closure in a stowed position relative to the handle. Petitioner asserted that these detents are projections extending from the handle and are structurally equivalent to the spaced-apart tabs of the ’252 patent.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): In the alternative, Petitioner argued any differences would have been obvious. For example, if the placement of detents on the outside of the handle loop was deemed different, Leoncavallo suggests an alternative embodiment with engagement on the inner surface. A POSITA would have been motivated to pursue this known, predictable design choice.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success would be expected, as modifying the location of the retention mechanism from the outside to the inside of the handle loop is one of a finite number of predictable solutions for achieving the same function.

Ground 3: Claims 5-7, 16, and 19 are obvious over Miller in view of Leoncavallo.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Miller (Design Patent D586,184) and Leoncavallo (Patent 7,753,240).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Miller, a design patent for a beverage container, discloses the core elements of a handle with a closure retention mechanism. Miller’s handle features an indentation that aligns with and receives a small projecting tab on the closure to hold it in an open, stowed position. While Miller illustrates the general form, Leoncavallo supplies the well-known functional details of a complete removable cap assembly not detailed in the design patent, including a threaded base, a defined drink spout, and a plug seal for the closure.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine the teachings of Leoncavallo with Miller's design to create a fully functional beverage container. The combination would simply add necessary and conventional features (a functional liquid container, base, spout, and closure from Leoncavallo) to Miller’s container design, which already included the handle and retention mechanism concept. This represents the simple addition of known elements to obtain a predictable result.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because combining a well-known functional cap assembly (Leoncavallo) with a container body and handle (Miller) was a routine and predictable task in the field of beverage container design.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Samartgis or Leoncavallo with Gorskey (EP Publication 2177447A1) and/or Johnson (Application # 2006/0006578) to teach specific spout/closure engagement features of claims 16-18.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued the term "closure retention mechanism" is a means-plus-function term governed by 35 U.S.C. §112(f) because "mechanism" is a generic nonce term and the modifier "closure retention" only describes its function, not a definite structure.
  • Function: "selectively retain the closure in a stowed position relative to the handle when the closure is selectively removed from the drink spout and received by the closure retention mechanism."
  • Corresponding Structure: "a pair of spaced-apart, and optionally opposed, tabs 56 that engage and retain the closure in the stowed position," as disclosed in the ’252 patent specification.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, stating that the district court trial is scheduled for September 2025, well after a Final Written Decision (FWD) would issue, discovery is in its infancy, and Petitioner will move to stay the litigation. Petitioner also stipulated it would not pursue the IPR grounds in district court if a stay is not granted.
• Petitioner also argued against denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), asserting that the petition raises a strong case of unpatentability based on prior art and arguments not previously considered by the PTO. Four of the five primary references were never presented to the examiner, and the fifth (Leoncavallo) was only submitted in an IDS and never substantively applied, indicating a material error by the examiner.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 5-7 and 16-19 of Patent 8,905,252 as unpatentable.