Soluble Tech Group LLC v. Coca Cola Co Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Soluble Technologies Group, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: The Coca-Cola Co., Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Gellert Seitz Busenkell & Brown LLC; Kean Miller LLP
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00122, D. Del., 02/02/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Freestyle® soda machine concentrate cartridges infringe multiple patents related to liquid flavoring concentrate compositions and methods of use.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns liquid water enhancers (LWE), which are concentrated formulas designed to rapidly dissolve in water to create flavored beverages at the point of consumption.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff first contacted Defendant regarding its patented formulas on May 16, 2017, and again through counsel on August 19, 2025. The complaint notes that Plaintiff has previously successfully enforced its patents against other competitors and entered into license agreements.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,517,033 - FLAVORING COMPOSITION CONCENTRATES

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,517,033, FLAVORING COMPOSITION CONCENTRATES, issued December 6, 2022.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty of achieving complete and rapid dissolution of flavoring compositions in cold water for point-of-consumption beverages, which can lead to negative aesthetic impacts and prevent effective flavor delivery (’033 Patent, col. 1:40-64). Prior art solutions using surfactants or emulsions were noted to have disadvantages such as creating off-tastes or lacking visual clarity (’033 Patent, col. 2:5-22).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a liquid flavoring concentrate that employs a "densifier," described as an acid modifier, in combination with a solvent system to optimize the rate and completeness of dispersion in water (’033 Patent, abstract; ’033 Patent, col. 2:30-38). By controlling the composition's density through specific concentrations of acids and solvents, the concentrate is designed to mix rapidly without the problems of prior art formulations (’033 Patent, col. 2:48-56).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for creating stable, clear, and rapidly dissolving liquid concentrates, facilitating the market for convenient point-of-use flavored beverages Compl. ¶10

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (’033 Patent, col. 11:51-12:6; Compl. ¶3).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • A point-of-consumption beverage flavoring liquid concentrate composition comprising:
  • a flavor component;
  • one or more solvent components selected from the group consisting of water, ethanol, and any combination thereof;
  • one or more acid modifiers selected from the group consisting of citric acid, malic acid, tartaric acid, phosphoric acid, and any combination thereof;
  • wherein the one or more acid modifiers comprises from about 5% to about 20% by weight of the liquid concentrate composition;
  • wherein the combination of the one or more solvent components and the one or more acid modifiers comprises at least 80% by weight of the liquid concentrate composition; and
  • wherein water comprises at least 35% by weight of the liquid concentrate composition.

U.S. Patent No. 11,606,961 - FLAVORING COMPOSITION CONCENTRATES

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,606,961, FLAVORING COMPOSITION CONCENTRATES, issued March 21, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the related ’033 Patent, the technology addresses the challenge of making flavoring compositions that dissolve quickly and completely in cold water without undesirable side effects (’961 Patent, col. 1:43-66).
• The Patented Solution: This patent claims a packaged concentrate with specific compositional and functional properties. The invention focuses on achieving a rapid dispersion time—less than 20 seconds—by controlling the formulation, including the combined weight percentage of solvents and acid modifiers, and the overall water content (’961 Patent, col. 11:55-12:20). The specification provides experimental data correlating composition density with dispersion time (’961 Patent, col. 6:47-53).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides specific, testable performance metrics for a liquid concentrate, aiming to ensure a consistent and rapid user experience at the point of consumption Compl. ¶10

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 6 (’961 Patent, col. 11:55-12:20; Compl. ¶3).
• The essential elements of independent claim 6 are:
  • A packaged liquid beverage flavoring concentrate comprising:
  • (a) a package adapted to store the liquid beverage flavoring concentrate and to dispense the concentrate at a point-of-consumption; and
  • (b) a liquid beverage flavoring concentrate comprising:
  • at least one flavor component;
  • optionally, a colorant;
  • one or more solvent components selected from the group consisting of water, ethanol, propylene glycol, and any combination thereof; and
  • one or more acid modifiers selected from the group consisting of citric acid, malic acid, tartaric acid, phosphoric acid, and any combination thereof;
  • wherein the combination of the one or more solvent components and the one or more acid modifiers comprise at least 95% by weight of the liquid concentrate composition;
  • wherein the liquid concentrate comprises at least 35% by weight water;
  • wherein when the liquid beverage flavoring concentrate composition is introduced into water, the liquid concentrate composition disperses in the water in less than 20 seconds.

Multi-Patent Capsules

• U.S. Patent No. 11,744,267: FLAVORING COMPOSITION CONCENTRATES, issued September 5, 2023.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family, describes a liquid flavoring concentrate defined by the relative percentages of its components. The invention aims to produce a rapidly dispersing, optically clear beverage by controlling the amounts of acid modifiers and solvents, which together must comprise at least 80% of the composition by weight (’267 Patent, col. 11:1-12:17).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 15 Compl. ¶3
  • Accused Features: The Coca-Cola® P1 and Coca-Cola® Zero Sugar P1 cartridges are accused of infringing based on their chemical composition, including their flavor, solvent, and acid content Compl. ¶¶23, 25, 32, 36

• U.S. Patent No. 11,785,969: FLAVORING COMPOSITION CONCENTRATES, issued October 17, 2023.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a packaged liquid concentrate with specific density and dispersion time characteristics. The claimed composition is defined by a density between 1.05 g/ml and 1.15 g/ml and a dispersion time of less than 20 seconds, achieved through specific ratios of solvents and acid modifiers (’969 Patent, col. 11:1-12:57).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 Compl. ¶3
  • Accused Features: The Coca-Cola® P1 cartridge is accused of infringing based on its alleged chemical composition and physical properties Compl. ¶¶23, 32

• U.S. Patent No. 11,766,054: FLAVORING COMPOSITION CONCENTRATES, issued September 26, 2023.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to a packaged liquid concentrate defined by compositional limits and a functional dispersion time. The claims require the combination of solvents and acid modifiers to be at least 80% by weight, a water content of at least 35% by weight, and a density between 1.05 g/ml and 1.15 g/ml, which together are designed to ensure rapid dispersion (’054 Patent, col. 11:5-12:50).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 6 Compl. ¶3
  • Accused Features: The Coca-Cola® P1 cartridge is accused of infringing based on its chemical composition and alleged density Compl. ¶¶23, 32

• U.S. Patent No. 11,517,034: FLAVORING COMPOSITION CONCENTRATES, issued December 6, 2022.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of flavoring water at a point-of-consumption. The method involves adding a liquid concentrate with specific compositional ranges (e.g., acid modifiers from 5% to 20% by weight) to water, wherein the concentrate is formulated to achieve rapid dispersion (’034 Patent, col. 11:52-12:12).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 17 Compl. ¶¶1-2
  • Accused Features: The sale and use of the Coca-Cola® P1, Coca-Cola® Zero Sugar P1, and Diet Coke® P2 cartridges in Freestyle® machines are accused of infringing the method claims Compl. ¶¶24, 26, 28, 34, 38, 42

• U.S. Patent No. 11,606,962: FLAVORING COMPOSITION CONCENTRATES, issued March 21, 2023.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of flavoring water using a liquid concentrate with specific properties, including a density between 1.05 g/ml and 1.24 g/ml. The method relies on this density to achieve a dispersion time of less than 20 seconds when added to water (’962 Patent, col. 11:47-12:10).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 8 Compl. ¶2
  • Accused Features: The sale and use of the Coca-Cola® P1 and Diet Coke® P2 cartridges in Freestyle® machines are accused of infringing the method claims Compl. ¶¶24, 28, 34, 42

• U.S. Patent No. 11,622,570: FLAVORING COMPOSITION CONCENTRATES, issued April 11, 2023.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of flavoring water using a liquid concentrate with a density of 1.05 g/ml to 1.15 g/ml. The claimed method requires adding the concentrate to water, where its composition causes it to disperse in less than 20 seconds (’570 Patent, col. 11:45-12:21).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 Compl. ¶2
  • Accused Features: The sale and use of the Diet Coke® P2 cartridge in Freestyle® machines is accused of infringing the method claims Compl. ¶¶28, 42

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are the concentrate compositions within the Coca-Cola® P1, Coca-Cola® Zero Sugar P1, and Diet Coke® P2 Freestyle® Cartridges Compl. ¶2

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are liquid flavoring concentrates sold for use in Defendant's Freestyle® touch screen soda fountain machines, which create "post-mix" beverages by diluting the concentrate with water at the point-of-consumption Compl. ¶13 The complaint alleges these concentrates are packaged in a "double cartridge" system containing two separate bags of concentrate, labeled "P1" and "P2" Compl. ¶16 The complaint's allegations are based on the ingredients listed on the product labels and on chemical testing of the concentrates Compl. ¶17 The complaint presents an image of the product labels, which list ingredients such as water, phosphoric acid, and natural flavors Compl. p. 5, Table 1 The Freestyle® machine platform was first launched in 2009 and has seen multiple model updates, indicating its established presence in the market Compl. ¶¶13-15

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’033 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention:

• Scope Questions: The complaint alleges infringement of claim 1 by the Diet Coke® P2 product, yet the complaint’s own test data shows a total acid concentration of 4.27% Compl. Table 4 This value is outside the claimed range of "about 5% to about 20%." The analysis will raise the question of whether the term "about 5%" can be construed to cover 4.27%, which may depend on arguments under the doctrine of equivalents or evidence regarding measurement variability.
• Technical Questions: The infringement theory relies on third-party laboratory testing Compl. ¶17 A technical question will be the validity and precision of the methods used, such as ion chromatography and Karl Fischer titration, to determine the weight percentages of the claimed components (Compl. ¶¶20-21).

’961 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention:

• Technical Questions: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that the accused products meet the functional limitation of dispersing in "less than 20 seconds" but provides no testing data or evidence to support this claim Compl. ¶22 A key question will be what evidence the plaintiff can produce to prove this performance metric is met.
• Scope Questions: The construction of "disperses in the water in less than 20 seconds" will be critical. The patent specification describes a particular test methodology (5.1 grams of concentrate added to 500 mL of 63°F still water) (’961 Patent, col. 6:5-13). It raises the question of whether infringement requires meeting the time limit under those specific conditions or under any reasonable set of conditions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’033 Patent:

• The Term: "about 5% to about 20% by weight"
• Context and Importance: This term is critical because the plaintiff's own data for the Diet Coke® P2 product (4.27% acid) falls below the 5% threshold Compl. Table 4 Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement allegation for that product appears to hinge entirely on the flexibility afforded by the word "about."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of "about" itself suggests the patentee did not intend the range to be a strict numerical boundary. The specification discusses various formulations and the goal of optimizing dispersion, which could be used to argue that compositions that achieve the same result and are numerically close should be included (’033 Patent, col. 2:53-56).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides numerous examples with specific percentages, such as Example 2A which shows acid concentrations of 9%, 11.7%, 14%, 16%, and 17% (’033 Patent, col. 11, Example 2A). A party could argue that these embodiments define the practical scope and that 4.27% is too far afield to be considered "about 5%."

For the ’961 Patent:

• The Term: "disperses in the water in less than 20 seconds"
• Context and Importance: This functional limitation is a cornerstone of claim 6, but the complaint provides no supporting data. Practitioners may focus on this term because it shifts the dispute from a purely compositional analysis to one of performance testing, for which no methodology is agreed upon.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the claim language does not specify test conditions, so any standard, repeatable test that shows dispersion in under 20 seconds should suffice to prove infringement.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a detailed "dispersion testing" protocol: "5.1 grams of colored concentrate was added to the surface of the water [500 ml of tap water at 63 degrees F.]... The time required to achieve complete dispersion... was recorded" (’961 Patent, col. 6:5-13). A party will likely argue that this is the required standard for measuring infringement, and failure to meet the time limit under these exact conditions means there is no infringement.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges infringement of method claims through the "sale and use" of the accused cartridges (Compl. ¶¶24, 26, 28, 38, 42). The allegation of inducement may be based on Defendant manufacturing and selling the cartridges specifically for use in its Freestyle® machines, which are designed to perform the patented method of mixing the concentrate with water Compl. ¶5
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the patented technology. It cites a May 16, 2017 email from a representative of the Plaintiff to the Defendant and a subsequent notice letter sent by counsel on August 19, 2025 Compl. ¶¶29, 31 The complaint alleges that Defendant "ignored" the invitation to discuss the technology and "continues to make infringing products," which may support a claim for willful infringement Compl. ¶¶29, 31

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "about 5%," as recited in claim 1 of the ’033 patent, be construed to encompass a composition with a 4.27% acid concentration, as alleged for the Diet Coke® P2 product? This question will likely involve claim construction and the doctrine of equivalents.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: For claims containing performance limitations, such as "disperses in the water in less than 20 seconds" in the ’961 patent, what evidence will Plaintiff provide, and will the court require that evidence to conform to the specific testing protocol disclosed in the patent specification?
• A central question for damages will be willfulness: Given the complaint’s specific allegations of pre-suit notice to Defendant dating back to 2017, the court will need to determine whether Defendant’s alleged continued infringement after notice, if proven, constitutes the type of egregious conduct that warrants enhanced damages.