Ring Container Technologies LLC v. Graham Packaging Co LP

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Ring Container Technologies, LLC (Tennessee)
  • Defendant: Graham Packaging Company, L.P. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00121, D. Del., 02/02/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a limited partnership organized under the laws of Delaware and is therefore a resident of the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s multilayer plastic container products infringe four patents related to manufacturing methods and structures for polyethylene terephthalate (PET) containers that incorporate an oxygen barrier layer while maintaining recyclability.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of protecting oxygen-sensitive contents in plastic packaging, such as food, by embedding a functional barrier layer within the container walls, while also designing the manufacturing process to ensure that scrap material remains free of costly additives and can be efficiently recycled.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was aware of Plaintiff's patented "BarrierGuard® OxygenSmart™" technology through industry events, including a presentation to the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) in October 2022. Plaintiff alleges it sent a notice letter to Defendant on March 28, 2025, identifying potential infringement, and further alleges that Defendant copied its technology after studying Plaintiff's products.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 12,030,233 - "Container and Method of Manufacture," issued July 9, 2024

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the high cost and processing challenges associated with additives (like oxygen scavengers) used in PET containers. When scrap material from the manufacturing process—such as the "dome or moil" trimmed from a bottle—contains these additives, it can cause issues like yellowing or delamination when recycled, reducing its value and reusability Compl. ¶15 ’233 Patent, col. 3:6-23
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for manufacturing a multi-layer container preform using a two-phase injection system. The first phase injects a base material (e.g., virgin PET) without additives to form a section of the preform that will later be trimmed off as scrap. The second phase injects material containing the functional additive to form the multi-layer body of the final container. This method concentrates the additive in the finished product and creates "clean" scrap that can be easily recycled without contamination issues ’233 Patent, abstract ’233 Patent, col. 4:41-60
• Technical Importance: This approach addresses a core economic and sustainability issue in plastic packaging by enabling the use of functional additives without compromising the recyclability of manufacturing scrap.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least exemplary Claim 1 ’233 Patent, claim 1 Compl. ¶32
• Independent Claim 1 requires, in part:
  • A container with a "top section" having only one layer.
  • A "bottom section" with an outer layer, an intermediate layer, and an inner layer.
  • The single-layer top section and the inner/outer layers of the bottom section are made from a "first material."
  • The intermediate layer of the bottom section comprises an "additive."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers to "one or more claims" Compl. ¶32

U.S. Patent No. 12,337,520 - "Container and Method of Manufacture," issued June 24, 2025

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Conventional methods for making barrier containers lack the ability to selectively and precisely position the barrier layer within the wall of the container, often leading to inefficient use of expensive additives like oxygen scavengers ’520 Patent, col. 2:1-6
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a finished container and manufacturing method where a concentrated layer of an active oxygen scavenger is not just included, but is specifically "biased towards an inner surface of the inner portion" of the container wall ’520 Patent, claim 19 This strategic placement is described as creating a more effective "physical barrier" that resists oxygen penetration, allowing for less total additive to be used while achieving superior performance ’520 Patent, abstract ’520 Patent, col. 3:25-44
• Technical Importance: This technology aims to improve the performance-to-cost ratio of barrier packaging by making more efficient use of functional additives through precise structural placement.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least exemplary Claim 19 ’520 Patent, claim 19 Compl. ¶41
• Independent Claim 19 requires, in part:
  • A finished container with a first (PET) wall section and a second (multilayer PET) wall section.
  • An "active oxygen scavenger additive" in an amount less than 1.0 wt. % of the container.
  • The scavenger is "concentrated in the intermediate portion" of the second wall section to form a "physical barrier."
  • The physical barrier is "biased towards an inner surface of the inner portion."
• The complaint refers to "one or more claims" of the patent Compl. ¶41

U.S. Patent No. 12,434,422 - "Container and Method of Manufacture," issued October 7, 2025

Technology Synopsis

The patent discloses a preform for making a container where an intermediate layer with an additive is biased toward the container's inner wall. The invention defines this placement structurally by reference to a "midline" through the preform wall, with the intermediate layer being positioned exclusively in the inner half of the wall thickness to create a more efficient oxygen barrier ’422 Patent, abstract ’422 Patent, summary

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts infringement of at least exemplary Claim 18 Compl. ¶50

Accused Features

The Defendant's LayerLock™ products are accused of infringing by having a multi-layer structure where the barrier layer is selectively positioned within the container wall Compl. ¶¶29, 51

U.S. Patent No. 12,472,674 - "Container and Method of Manufacture," issued November 18, 2025

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a method of making a multi-layer container from a preform created via a two-phase injection process. A first phase injects an additive-free material to form a single layer (e.g., the scrap portion of the preform), while a second phase injects material with an additive to create the multi-layer body of the container. This technique isolates the additive in the final product and keeps the manufacturing scrap "clean" for recycling ’674 Patent, abstract ’674 Patent, summary

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts infringement of at least exemplary Claim 20 Compl. ¶59

Accused Features

The LayerLock™ products are accused of having a multi-layer structure with an additive-containing intermediate layer, which Plaintiff alleges infringes the claimed method and resulting container structure Compl. ¶¶29, 60

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Defendant’s "LayerLock™ Multilayer preforms and container products" (the "Accused Products") Compl. ¶29

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Products are described as PET containers and preforms featuring a multilayer structure that incorporates a barrier to protect the container's contents from oxygen while remaining recyclable Compl. ¶29 A marketing image included in the complaint depicts the Accused Product technology with a cutaway view showing distinct "Inner Layer PET," "LayerLock™," and "Outer Layer PET" layers Compl. p. 9 The complaint alleges Defendant developed this technology after its existing "monolayer" technology was found to be inferior and unable to secure approval from the APR, and after learning of customer interest in Plaintiff’s competing technology Compl. ¶¶25-26

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits G, H, I, J) purporting to detail infringement but does not attach them Compl. ¶¶34, 43, 52, 61 The following analysis is based on the complaint's narrative allegations and a review of the asserted claims against the described functionality of the Accused Products.

’233 Patent Infringement Allegations

’520 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Question (Process): A primary point of contention for the ’233 and ’674 Patents will likely be factual and related to the manufacturing process. The case may turn on what discovery reveals about whether the Accused Products are made from preforms with a single-layer, additive-free "top section" that is trimmed as scrap.
• Evidentiary Question (Structure): For the ’520 and ’422 Patents, a key dispute will likely be whether the "LayerLock™" barrier is "biased towards an inner surface." The marketing visual provided in the complaint depicts a symmetric structure, raising the question of what technical evidence Plaintiff will offer to prove the allegedly copied asymmetric placement Compl. p. 9 Compl. ¶26
• Scope Question: The parties may dispute whether the Accused Product's "LayerLock™" barrier layer, as it functions in practice, meets the specific definitions of "additive," "concentrated," and "physical barrier" as those terms are used in the context of the patent specifications.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a top section" (from ’233 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the non-obviousness of the ’233 Patent's invention, which focuses on creating additive-free scrap. Infringement will depend on whether the Defendant's manufacturing process creates a corresponding structure that is later trimmed. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether infringement requires a physically severable scrap dome or encompasses other manufacturing configurations.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "top section" without explicitly requiring that it be trimmed or discarded, which could support a construction covering any distinct upper portion of a preform.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the inventive concept in the context of "blow and trim applications" where a "dome or moil scrap... is trimmed" ’233 Patent, col. 4:4-8 Figure 2 explicitly illustrates a "Trim Point" separating the bottle from the dome, suggesting the "top section" is the portion destined to become scrap material.

• The Term: "biased towards an inner surface" (from ’520 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This phrase captures the core of the claimed technical advantage in the ’520 Patent—improved efficiency through strategic placement of the barrier layer. The infringement analysis for this patent will likely depend entirely on the construction of this term and the evidence of the accused product's internal structure.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "biased" could be construed broadly to mean any positioning that is not perfectly centered, i.e., simply closer to the inner wall than the outer wall.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a more precise structural definition, stating the intermediate portion is "positioned exclusively in the second portion" of the wall, where the "second portion" is defined as the area between the wall's "midline" and its inner surface ’520 Patent, col. 3:25-44 Figure 6 further illustrates this specific placement, which could support a narrower construction requiring a material and measurable offset from the center.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is premised on Defendant knowingly selling the Accused Products to customers (such as Red Gold and Kraft Heinz) with the intent that they be used in an infringing manner Compl. ¶35 Contributory infringement is alleged on the grounds that the Accused Products are especially made for infringement and have no substantial non-infringing uses Compl. ¶36
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents and the infringing activity. The complaint alleges Defendant knew of Plaintiff's technology since February 2019, reviewed Plaintiff’s technology at an October 2022 industry presentation, received a specific notice of infringement letter for the '233 and '422 patents on March 28, 2025, and subsequently copied the technology Compl. ¶¶23, 24, 26, 37

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This dispute between two competitors in the plastic packaging market will likely focus on a combination of highly technical evidence and claim construction. The central questions for the court appear to be:

1. A core issue will be one of structural evidence: Can Plaintiff produce technical evidence, such as microscopy analysis, to demonstrate that Defendant’s LayerLock™ products contain a barrier layer that is "biased towards an inner surface," as required by key asserted claims? The complaint’s own visual evidence does not depict such a bias, making this a critical evidentiary hurdle.

2. A second key question will be one of manufacturing process: Will discovery show that Defendant’s manufacturing method creates a preform with a distinct, additive-free "top section" that corresponds to recyclable scrap material? Proof of this structure is fundamental to the infringement allegations for at least two of the patents-in-suit.

3. The outcome may also depend on definitional scope: How will the court construe the term "top section"? A narrow interpretation requiring a physically trimmed dome could limit the scope of the ’233 and ’674 patents, while a broader one could cover a wider range of manufacturing techniques.