Non-infringement finding upheld by CAFC in dispute over silicone container patent

Non-infringement finding upheld by CAFC in dispute over silicone container patent

“The CAFC reportedly confirmed that ‘it is the claims, not the preferred embodiments, that define the metes and bounds of the patentee’s invention’”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) confirmed a district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement in favour of SC Johnson & Son Incorporated in a case brought by Zip Top, Inc. The decision hinged on interpretation of a key term in a patent claim for reusable silicone containers.

A decision from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois that granted summary judgement of non-infringement to SC Johnson was appealed by Zip Top. SC Johnson’s Ziploc Endurables products infringed United States Patent No. 11,383, 890 that reveals a process for making a container from moulded silicone according to Zip Top. The products accused are reusable silicone containers with a zipper at the top that is bonded at the ends to prevent leakage of liquid and has ‘cool grab tabs’.

SC Johnson argued that its products do not include a ‘spout’. Both Zip Top and SC Johnson agreed before the district court that the spout claim element should be reportedly interpreted as a ‘distinct feature that directs liquid from and facilitates the pouring of fluid from a container’. The dispute on appeal stemmed from an additional limitation the district court imposed reportedly finding that “the zipper members are not the spout or part of it; rather, the spout is a separate feature”.

Zip Top’s argument was that the district court make a mistake by imposing a negative limitation absent in the claim language. The male and female zipper members of Ziploc Endurables containers ‘cross over’ each other at the tips and a user may hold the container by the ‘cool grab tabs’ to pour fluid over a ‘cool grab tab’; Zip Top said.

Zip Top’s proposed construction was disagreed with by the CAFC and the court reportedly found that “‘the clear implication of the claim language is that the zipper members and the spout are distinct component[s] of the patented invention because claims 1 and 9 of the patent list them separately.”

In both claims, the spout is an element of the container’s mouth which is part of the container and not the separate zipper portion; the court explained. The specification too persistently referred to the spout and zipper members as distinct features. Also, the court found Zip Top’s proposed construction illogical.

The court reasoned that if the zipper members terminate at the spout, they cannot be part of the spout. Zip Top incorrectly depended on preferred embodiments in the specification rather than the claim language, the court noted. The CAFC reportedly echoed that “it is the claims, not the preferred embodiments, that define the metes and bounds of the patentee’s invention”. Reportedly, the court further said that “the mere fact that there is an alternative embodiment disclosed in [a] patent that is not encompassed by [the] district court’s claim construction does not outweigh the language of the claim, especially when the court’s construction is supported by the intrinsic evidence.”