PTAB

PGR2024-00035

MPL Brands NV Inc v. BuzzBallz LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Container
  • Brief Description: The ’441 patent describes a beverage container featuring a body made from a resin (e.g., PET) and a metal lid (e.g., aluminum) with a stay-on tab. The claims recite specific geometric and ornamental features of the container's body, base, and lid.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-8 are obvious over the Coca-Cola PET Can alone or in combination with Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Coca-Cola PET Can (“PCAN”), a commercial product publicly sold and marketed from 1985-1986.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the PCAN, a beverage container with a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) body and a standard aluminum lid, embodies all limitations of independent claim 1. This included a resin body, a metal lid with a pull-top arm, a base portion with an upwardly extending depression, a circular neck, and a stemless design. Petitioner provided detailed photographic evidence mapping each element of claim 1 and dependent claims 2-8 to the physical features of the PCAN. For example, claim 2's requirement for PET resin and claim 4's requirement for an aluminum lid were shown to be met by the materials used in the PCAN.
    • Motivation to Combine (for AAPA): The ’441 patent’s specification acknowledged that blow molding was a "known molding process" for forming plastic containers. Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to use this AAPA to form the PCAN's body, rendering claim 3 obvious.
    • Expectation of Success: As the PCAN was a successfully manufactured and commercialized product, a POSITA would have had a complete expectation of success in producing a container with the claimed features.

Ground 2: Claims 9-20 are obvious over the Coca-Cola PET Can in view of Protais and AAPA.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Coca-Cola PET Can (“PCAN”) and Protais (Patent 8,524,349).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground combined the PCAN with Protais, which disclosed a strengthened bottom for thermoplastic containers. Claims 9-20 add limitations directed to multiple depressions in the base that are visible through a transparent or translucent container body. Protais taught a container base with multiple reinforcing grooves that form a plurality of depressions (e.g., five or more) and a downward-projecting central axial disk. The PCAN was shown to have a translucent body, making its single internal depression visible.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the PCAN with the Protais base to improve strength and resistance to deformation. The PCAN was known to be slightly taller than standard aluminum cans to accommodate its base depression; using the stronger Protais base would allow for a shorter can of standard height while maintaining structural integrity. Protais’s teachings on strengthening plastic container bases with reinforcing grooves directly addressed this known design consideration.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in integrating Protais’s circular base design into the PCAN's cylindrical body, as it was a simple combination of known elements for a predictable improvement in strength.

Ground 3: Claims 1-20 are obvious over Metzger, 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: This combination argued that the claimed container was a predictable assembly of known components. Metzger disclosed a plastic beverage container with a specific body shape, including a side wall, neck, and base portion, and mentioned the use of various lids like "pop-tops" without providing detail. Protais, as in Ground 2, supplied a detailed design for a strengthened plastic container base with reinforcing grooves (depressions). Kaminski provided the missing detail from Metzger by disclosing a specific "easy open can end" (lid) made of aluminum with a pull-tab arm, scored opening, and raised edge for sealing.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to create an optimized beverage container. The motivation to combine Metzger and Protais was to augment Metzger’s basic container body with the improved strength and deformation resistance of Protais’s base. A POSITA would then look to Kaminski to implement the "pop-top" lid mentioned by Metzger, as Kaminski provided a detailed, well-understood design for such a lid, offering benefits like material savings and tab retention for safety and ecological reasons.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved simple, modular substitutions of known components: replacing Metzger's generic base with Protais's improved base and implementing Metzger's generic lid concept with Kaminski's specific, compatible design.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 1-20 based on the combination of Gardiner (Patent 6,729,495), Pedmo (Patent 6,585,123), and Brown (Patent 4,024,981), which similarly relied on combining a known container body, an improved base, and a detailed easy-open lid.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be improper because the prior art references and arguments presented in the petition are new and were not considered during the original examination. The petition asserted it was not cumulative to the prosecution history, which involved a first-action allowance with limited prior art analysis.
  • Regarding §314(a) and parallel district court litigation, Petitioner stated it would file a stipulation not to pursue the same invalidity grounds in court if the PGR is instituted.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of a post-grant review and the cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’441 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.