Crown Packaging Tech. Inc. v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp..

• Decision Date: 01 June 2011
• Docket Number: No. 2010–1020.,2010–1020.
• Citation: 635 F.3d 1373
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
• Parties: CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC. and Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc., Plaintiffs–Appellants,v.BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORPORATION, Defendant–Appellee.

635 F.3d 1373

98 U.S.P.Q.2d 1244

CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC. and Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc., Plaintiffs–Appellants,

v.BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORPORATION, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 2010–1020.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 1, 2011.Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied June 1, 2011.

Dale M. Heist, Woodcock Washburn LLP, of Philadelphia, PA, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief were Aleksander J. Goranin and Aaron B. Rabinowitz.John D. Luken, Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP, of Cincinnati, OH, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Joshua A. Lorentz and Charles H. Brown, III.Before NEWMAN and DYK, Circuit Judges, and WHYTE, District Judge. ^*Opinion for the court filed by District Judge WHYTE. Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part filed by Circuit Judge DYK.WHYTE, District Judge.

Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. and Crown Cork and Seal USA, Inc. (collectively “Crown”) appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio following its granting of Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp.'s (“Ball's”) motion for summary judgment invalidating the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,935,826 (“the '826 patent”) and 6,848,875 (“the '875 patent”) for violating the written description requirement and because the asserted claims were anticipated. Because the '826 and '875 patents' common specification conveys to one of ordinary skill in the art that the patentee was in possession of the subject matter of the asserted claims, and because a material dispute remains as to what the prior art inherently discloses, we reverse and remand.

I. Background

A. The '826 and '875 Patents

Crown and Ball are both in the business of selling can ends and can bodies to fillers associated with major beverage companies. “Can ends” are essentially the lids affixed to the top of beverage cans, while “can bodies” are generally cylindrical hollow containers to which the can ends are attached for filling.

The '826 and '875 patents share a common specification which identifies and discusses two ways to save metal when seaming can bodies and can ends. The specification teaches that “improvements in metal usage can be made by increasing the slope of the chuck wall and limiting the width of the anti peaking bead.” '826 patent col.1 ll.33–35.¹ Both improvements result in significant metal savings without reducing the overall can diameter, meaning that the improvements could be run on existing machinery.

The specification first describes the invention of increasing the slope of the can end's chuck wall (also referred to as the “can end wall”). This new geometry is different from prior art Figure 2, which shows a steep can end wall that has a relatively small angle C relative to the vertical axis:

Image 1 (4.54" X 2.52") Available for Offline Print

The specification teaches that angle C in prior art can end walls is “between 12° and 20° to the vertical.” Id. col.1 ll.21–55.

In contrast to the prior art, the specification describes a can end where the “chuck wall is inclined to axis perpendicular to the exterior of the central panel at an angle between 30° and 60°” and preferably “between 40° and 45°.” Id. col.2 ll.9–12. The new geometry is illustrated in Figure 5 below:

Image 2 (4.25" X 2.08") Available for Offline Print

This change in geometry—increasing the size of angle C relative to the vertical axis to make the chuck wall less steep—reduces the use of metal in the manufacturing of the can end. Id. col.2 ll.1–12.

The specification also teaches that metal can be saved by “limiting the width of the anti peaking bead,” preferably to a “bead narrower than 1.5mm” in radius. Id. col.1 ll.33–35, col.2 ll.10–11, col.4 l.19. This anti peaking bead—also known as the reinforcing bead—is the U-shaped structure shown in prior art Figure 2 around the location labeled “D.” In connection therewith, the specification discusses a new seaming method employing a modified seaming chuck to avoid causing damage to the chuck or the reinforcing bead, damage which otherwise might result from the narrowing of the bead. An embodiment of the modified seaming chuck (30) is shown below in Figures 6 and 7:

Image 3 (4.32" X 4.28") Available for Offline Print

In this embodiment, the can end is placed over a can body (12). Seaming rollers (34, 38) and modified chuck (30) are then applied. The modified chuck (30) has a frustoconical drive surface (32) which engages with the chuck wall (24) of the can end (22). Id. col.4 ll.43–46. During this seaming process, the “upper portion” of the chuck wall (24) is deformed so as to be bent upwardly around the chuck. Id. col.5 ll.7–12. The left-hand side of Figure 6 shows the beginning of this deformation, and the right-hand side of Figure 7 shows the final deformation after seaming is complete. The upper portion of the chuck wall is bent upwardly so as to be substantially vertical after seaming.

As the specification explains, this modified chuck (30) does not drive deeply into the anti peaking bead (25). Id. col.4 ll.59–62, col.4 l.65–col.5 l.3. The specification teaches that a chuck with “a narrow annular flange” is “more likely to fracture.” Id. col.1 ll.65–67, col.3 ll.46–47. Moreover, there “is a risk of scuffing if this annulus slips,” which may leave “unsightly black marks after pasteurization.” Id. col.1 ll.65–66, col.3 ll.49–50. To avoid these problems, the modified chuck does not drive deeply into the reinforcing bead.

The parties agree that the specification teaches that “improvements in metal usage can be made by increasing the slope of the chuck wall and limiting the width of the anti peaking bead.” Id. col.1 ll.33–35. However, the parties disagree as to whether the written description supports an invention that improves metal usage by increasing the slope of the chuck wall without a modified chuck that does not drive deeply into the reinforcing bead.

Claim 14 is the one asserted claim of the '826 patent. All of the '826 product claims are directed to a can end before it is seamed to a can body. Claim 14 depends from claim 13 and recites a series of structural features. Both claims are set out below:

13. A metal can end for use in packaging beverages under pressure and adapted to be joined to a can body by a seaming process so as to form a double seam therewith using a rotatable chuck comprising first and second circumferentially extending walls, said first and second chuck walls forming a juncture therebetween, said can end comprising;

a peripheral cover hook, said peripheral cover hook comprising a seaming panel adapted to be formed into a portion of said double seam during said seaming operation;

a central panel;

a wall extending inwardly and downwardly from said cover hook, a first portion of said wall extending from said cover hook to a first point on said wall, said first wall portion adapted to be deformed during said seaming operation so as to be bent upwardly around said juncture of said chuck walls at said first point on said wall, a second portion of said wall extending from said first point to a second point forming a lowermost end of said wall, a line extending between said first and second points being inclined to an axis perpendicular to said central panel at an angle of between 30° and 60°.

14. The end according to claim 13, further comprising an annular reinforcing bead connected to said wall at said second point, said annular reinforcing bead connecting said wall to said central panel.

Id. col.10 ll.37–65.

Claims 50 and 52 are the two asserted claims of the '875 patent. All of the '875 claims are directed to methods of seaming a can end. Claim 52 depends from claim 50 and both are reproduced below:

50. A method of forming a double seam between a can body and a can end intended for use in packaging a carbonated beverage, said method comprising the steps of:

a) providing a can end having a circumferentially extending peripheral cover hook, said peripheral cover hook comprising a seaming panel to be formed into a portion of said double seam during a seaming operation, an annular reinforcing bead, and a circumferentially extending wall extending from said seaming panel to said reinforcing bead, said wall and said reinforcing bead forming a transition therebetween;

b) placing said cover hook of said can end into contact with a circumferentially extending flange of a can body;

c) providing a rotatable chuck comprising first and second circumferentially extending walls, said second chuck wall depending from said first chuck wall so as to form a juncture therebetween;

d) bringing said chuck into engagement with said can end; and

e) performing said seaming operation by placing one or more seaming rolls into contact with said peripheral cover hook of said can end while said can end rotates so as to deform said seaming panel of said cover hook and to bend a portion of said can end wall upwardly around said juncture of said chuck walls at a first location on said can end wall, a straight line extending from said first location on said can end wall to said transition between said can end wall and said reinforcing bead inclined between about 20° and about 60° with respect to said axial centerline both before and after said seaming operation.

52. The method according to claim 50, wherein said line extending from said first location to said transition is inclined between about 30° and about 50° with respect to said axial centerline of said can end both before and after performing said seaming operation.

'875 patent col.15 ll.8–50.

B. The District Court Proceedings

Crown filed suit against Ball in 2005, shortly after the issuance of the ' 875 patent. When the '826 patent issued several months later, in August 2005, Crown amended its complaint to include that patent.

The district court construed the disputed claim terms in April 2008. On September 8, 2009, the district court granted Ball's motion for...