PTAB

IPR2024-01000

MPL Brands NV Inc v. BuzzBallz LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Beverage Container
  • Brief Description: The ’441 patent describes a beverage container comprising a body made from a resin and a metal lid with a stay-on, pop-top arm that pivots to open a weakened area. The patent discloses various container body shapes, including truncated spherical and cylindrical forms, and features related to the container's base structure and the geometry of its side walls.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-20 are obvious over Metzger in view of Protais and Kaminski.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Metzger (Patent 8,141,741), Protais (Patent 8,524,349), and Kaminski (Patent 4,465,204).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Metzger disclosed the fundamental elements of the claimed invention, including a container for beverages with a plastic body and a metal lid of the "pop-top" or "pull top" variety. Protais was cited for its teaching of an improved, strengthened base for thermoplastic containers featuring reinforcing grooves and ribs. Petitioner contended these features would be applied to Metzger’s less-detailed base. Kaminski was relied upon for its detailed disclosure of an "easy open" aluminum can lid with a specific pull-tab mechanism, which Petitioner asserted would supply the implementation details for the type of lid generally mentioned but not detailed in Metzger.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Metzger and Protais to increase the strength and deformation resistance of the container's base, addressing a well-known objective in container design. A POSITA, seeking to implement the pull-tab lid mentioned by Metzger, would look to a reference like Kaminski, which provided explicit design details for such a lid. Kaminski’s teachings on achieving ecological, safety, and material-saving benefits would further motivate its integration.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involved the straightforward substitution of known components—a stronger base design and a well-understood lid mechanism—to achieve their predictable functions within the established field of beverage container manufacturing.

Ground 2: Claims 1-20 are obvious over Gardiner in view of Pedmo and Brown.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gardiner (Patent 6,729,495), Pedmo (Patent 6,585,123), and Brown (Patent 4,024,981).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Gardiner disclosed a basic tubular beverage container made of plastic with an aluminum lid featuring a scored portion and a tab for opening. To improve upon Gardiner's basic design, Petitioner argued a POSITA would incorporate the teachings of Pedmo, which described an improved, high-strength base for thermoplastic containers that included radially extending struts and a central hub. While Gardiner described a tab, Brown was cited for its explicit teachings on the operation of a pivotable, rivet-attached tab used to rupture a scoreline, providing details on the opening mechanism that were not explicit in Gardiner.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Gardiner and Pedmo to incorporate Pedmo's superior base design, thereby imparting increased strength and improved impact properties to Gardiner’s container. Because Gardiner did not explicitly describe the mechanics of how its tab separated the scored portion, a POSITA would be motivated to consult an analogous reference like Brown to understand and implement a conventional and reliable retained-tab opening mechanism.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved simple modifications to a container's base and the application of a known lid-opening mechanism. Petitioner argued that these were routine design choices in the art, and a POSITA would have confidently expected the combined elements to function as intended to create an improved, robust beverage container.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) is unwarranted because the prior art references and combinations presented in the petition are new and were not cited or considered during the original examination, making the arguments non-cumulative. To address potential denial under §314(a) and the Fintiv factors, Petitioner stated it will file a stipulation, if the inter partes review (IPR) is instituted, not to pursue in parallel district court litigation the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the IPR.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an IPR and the cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent 11,932,441 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.