DCT

1:26-cv-00122

Soluble Tech Group LLC v. Coca Cola Co

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00122, D. Del., 04/10/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware on the basis that Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's concentrate cartridges for its Freestyle soda fountain machines infringe multiple patents related to liquid flavoring compositions.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns liquid water enhancers (LWE), which are concentrate compositions designed to rapidly and completely dissolve in water to create a finished beverage at the point of consumption.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff contacted Defendant regarding its patented formulas on May 16, 2017, but Defendant "ignored STG's invitation to engage in a discussion." A formal notice letter identifying the asserted patents and accused products was allegedly sent on August 19, 2025. The complaint also notes that Plaintiff has previously successfully enforced its patents and entered into license agreements with other industry leaders.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-03-22 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2009-01-01 Accused Product System (Freestyle machines) first launched
2014-01-01 Accused Product System (Freestyle model 7000) introduced
2017-05-16 Plaintiff alleges first pre-suit contact with Defendant regarding patented formulas
2018-01-01 Accused Product System (Freestyle model 9100) introduced
2021-01-01 Accused Product System (Freestyle model 7100) introduced
2022-01-01 Accused Product System (Freestyle model 8100) introduced
2022-12-06 U.S. Patent No. 11,517,033 Issued
2022-12-06 U.S. Patent No. 11,517,034 Issued
2023-01-01 Accused Product System (Freestyle "Flex" model) introduced
2023-03-21 U.S. Patent No. 11,606,961 Issued
2023-03-21 U.S. Patent No. 11,606,962 Issued
2023-04-11 U.S. Patent No. 11,622,570 Issued
2023-09-05 U.S. Patent No. 11,744,267 Issued
2023-09-26 U.S. Patent No. 11,766,054 Issued
2023-10-17 U.S. Patent No. 11,785,969 Issued
2025-08-19 Plaintiff alleges formal notice of infringement sent to Defendant
2026-03-22 Expiration Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2026-04-10 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,517,033 - "Flavoring Composition Concentrates"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty in achieving rapid and complete dissolution of flavoring agents in cold water for "point-of-consumption" beverages Compl. ¶10 '033 Patent, col. 1:40-47 Prior art solutions, such as those using high levels of surfactants, could result in off-tastes or beverages that are not optically clear '033 Patent, col. 2:10-22
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a liquid flavoring concentrate formulated to achieve rapid dispersion. This is accomplished by controlling the composition's density, primarily through the use of a "densifier," which is an acid modifier present in a specific concentration '033 Patent, abstract '033 Patent, col. 2:28-34 The specification teaches that increased density, achieved by managing the concentration of components like citric acid, leads to a reduced time for the concentrate to disperse in water '033 Patent, col. 6:40-47
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for the creation of stable, clear, point-of-consumption flavored beverages without the negative aesthetic or taste impacts associated with prior methods '033 Patent, col. 2:23-27

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 Compl. ¶3 Compl. ¶31 Compl. ¶35 Compl. ¶39
  • 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 (including water and/or ethanol);
    • one or more acid modifiers (e.g., citric, malic, tartaric, phosphoric acid);
    • wherein the acid modifiers comprise from about 5% to about 20% by weight of the composition;
    • wherein the combination of solvents and acid modifiers comprises at least 80% by weight of the composition; and
    • wherein water comprises at least 35% by weight of the composition.

U.S. Patent No. 11,517,034 - "Flavoring Composition Concentrates"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The technology described in the '034 Patent is identical to that of the '033 Patent, addressing the challenge of rapidly dissolving flavoring concentrates in cold water for immediate consumption '034 Patent, col. 1:40-47
  • The Patented Solution: The '034 Patent claims a method of using a liquid concentrate with specific compositional parameters to flavor water. As in the related '033 Patent, the composition is defined by its flavor, solvent, and acid modifier content, which is engineered to optimize density and promote rapid dispersion '034 Patent, abstract '034 Patent, col. 2:50-56
  • Technical Importance: The patent claims the act of using the specific concentrate formulation, thereby covering the point-of-consumption application of the technology '034 Patent, col. 11:53-57

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 17 Compl. ¶2 Compl. ¶3
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are a method of flavoring water by adding a liquid concentrate having the same compositional limitations as claim 1 of the '033 Patent, as described above. Claim 17 is a similarly structured method claim.

U.S. Patent No. 11,744,267 - "Flavoring Composition Concentrates"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, part of the same family, also discloses a liquid flavoring concentrate designed for rapid dispersion. It similarly relies on a combination of a flavor, solvents, and specific concentrations of acid modifiers to control density and dissolution rate '267 Patent, abstract
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 15 is asserted Compl. ¶3 Compl. ¶22 Compl. ¶24 Compl. ¶31 Compl. ¶35
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the formulation of the Coca-Cola® P1 and Coca-Cola® Zero Sugar P1 cartridges, specifically their water, acid, and flavor content, infringe this patent Compl. ¶31

U.S. Patent No. 11,606,961 - "Flavoring Composition Concentrates"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a packaged liquid beverage flavoring concentrate with specific compositional requirements related to its solvent, acid modifier, and water content, designed to disperse in water in less than 20 seconds '961 Patent, abstract '961 Patent, col. 12:7-17
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 6 is asserted Compl. ¶3 Compl. ¶26 Compl. ¶39
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the formulation of the Diet Coke® P2 Freestyle® cartridge, based on its water, acid, and flavor ingredients, infringes this patent Compl. ¶¶39-40

Other Patents-in-Suit

  • The complaint also asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 11,785,969 and 11,766,054 (composition claims) and U.S. Patent Nos. 11,606,962 and 11,622,570 (method claims) Compl. ¶3 These patents are part of the same family and share a common specification, covering related compositions and methods for rapidly-dissolving liquid beverage concentrates.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Coca-Cola® P1, Coca-Cola® Zero Sugar P1, and Diet Coke® P2 Freestyle® Cartridges ("The Accused Products") Compl. ¶2

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products are liquid concentrate cartridges used in Coca-Cola's Freestyle® touch screen soda fountain machines Compl. ¶2 These machines prepare finished beverages by diluting the concentrate with water at the point-of-consumption Compl. ¶13 The cartridges are described as "double cartridge" units containing two separate bags of concentrate, labeled as "P1" or "P2" Compl. ¶16 A photograph of the Coca-Cola® Zero Sugar P1 packaging shows two sets of ingredients for "P1" and "P2" Compl. p. 5 The complaint's allegations are based on chemical testing performed on the contents of specific cartridge parts (e.g., Coca-Cola P1, Diet Coke P2) Compl. ¶16

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'033 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a flavor component The Accused Products contain flavorings, such as "Natural Flavors" and "Caffeine," as listed on their ingredient labels. ¶16; p. 5 col. 3:6-15
one or more solvent components selected from the group consisting of water, ethanol, and any combination thereof "Water" is listed as a primary ingredient on the product labels. Chemical testing allegedly shows a water concentration of 89.07% for Coca-Cola® P1. ¶16; Table 5 col. 5:5-15
one or more acid modifiers selected from the group consisting of citric acid, malic acid, tartaric acid, phosphoric acid, and any combination thereof The product labels list "Phosphoric Acid" and/or "Citric Acid" as ingredients. ¶16; pp. 5-6 col. 5:41-49
wherein the one or more acid modifiers comprises from about 5% to about 20% by weight of the liquid concentrate composition Ion chromatography testing allegedly determined the total acid content of the Coca-Cola® P1 cartridge to be 8.64% by weight. ¶19; Table 4 col. 11:59-63
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 The sum of the measured water content (89.07%) and acid content (8.64%) for the Coca-Cola® P1 product is alleged to be 97.71%, which exceeds 80%. ¶20; ¶21; Table 4; Table 5 col. 11:64-67
wherein water comprises at least 35% by weight of the liquid concentrate composition Chemical testing allegedly determined the water content of the Coca-Cola® P1 product to be 89.07% by weight. ¶20; Table 5 col. 12:1-2

'034 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of flavoring water at a point-of-consumption, comprising: adding a liquid beverage flavoring concentrate to water... The complaint alleges infringement by the "sale and use" of the Accused Products, which are designed to be added to water by the Freestyle machine at the point-of-consumption. ¶23; ¶25; ¶27 col. 11:53-57
...the liquid beverage flavoring concentrate comprising: [compositional elements] The allegations for the concentrate composition are identical to those for the '033 Patent, as detailed in the chart above. The complaint relies on product labels and chemical testing to allege the cartridges meet each compositional requirement. ¶¶16-21; pp. 5-8 col. 11:58-12:2
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Quantitative Scope: The complaint alleges that the Diet Coke® P2 product infringes claims requiring acid modifiers of "about 5% to about 20%" Compl. ¶39 However, the complaint's own testing data for this product shows a total acid content of 4.27% (by ion chromatography) or 4.88% (by titration) Compl. Table 3 Compl. Table 4 This raises the question of whether a composition with a measured acid content below 5% can infringe a claim requiring "about 5%." The analysis may focus on the interpretation of the term "about" and the methodology of the chemical testing.
    • Indirect Infringement: The asserted claims of the '034 Patent are method claims requiring the step of "adding" the concentrate to water. This action is performed by the Freestyle machine, operated by Defendant's customers. The complaint's theory of liability against Defendant for these claims is based on the "sale and use" of the cartridges, which suggests a potential dispute over whether Defendant's actions constitute indirect infringement (e.g., inducement or contributory infringement) Compl. ¶23

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "about 5% to about 20% by weight"

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical to the infringement analysis for the Diet Coke® P2 product, as the complaint's own data indicates an acid concentration (4.27% or 4.88%) that is below the explicit 5% lower bound Compl. Table 3 Compl. Table 4 The viability of the infringement claim against this product may depend on the scope afforded to the word "about."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents use "about" frequently with numerical ranges, which may suggest an intent to avoid a strict, literal interpretation and to account for minor variations in manufacturing or measurement. For example, the specification discloses a general acid range of "about 1.5 wt. % to about 10.0 wt. %" '033 Patent, col. 4:15-17, suggesting that the specific claimed range is not an absolute cliff.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patents provide numerous specific examples with acid percentages well within the claimed range, such as 17%, 9%, and 14% '033 Patent, col. 11, Example 2A A party could argue that the explicit recitation of "5%" as the lower bound was a deliberate choice and that "about" should not be interpreted to encompass a value that is more than 10% lower than the stated boundary.

  • The Term: "point-of-consumption"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the intended use and context of the invention, distinguishing it from concentrates used in bulk beverage production. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement theory is centered on the immediate preparation of beverages for consumers by the Freestyle machines Compl. ¶13
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide a rigid definition, which may allow for flexibility in its application to different immediate-use scenarios.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The "Description of the Prior Art" section frames the invention as a solution to the "portability and storage" difficulties of prepared beverages, contrasting it with traditional methods '033 Patent, col. 1:40-43 This context supports an interpretation limited to on-demand preparation for an end-user, as is alleged to occur with the Freestyle machines.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For method patents like the '034 Patent, the complaint alleges infringement based on Defendant's "sale and use" of the accused cartridges Compl. ¶23 Compl. ¶25 Compl. ¶27 This suggests a theory of indirect infringement, where Defendant is alleged to be liable for inducing or contributing to the direct infringement performed by its customers who operate the Freestyle machines that "add" the concentrate to water.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiff's patents and infringement. It asserts that Plaintiff contacted Defendant regarding its "patented formulas" on May 16, 2017 Compl. ¶28 It further alleges that a formal notice letter was sent on August 19, 2025, after which Defendant "continues to make infringing products" Compl. ¶30 These allegations form the basis for a claim of willful infringement.

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

  • A central issue will be one of quantitative scope: can the claim term "about 5%" be construed to cover the accused Diet Coke® P2 product's measured acid content, which the complaint's own data places at 4.27% or 4.88%? This question will likely involve a combination of claim construction for the term "about" and a factual dispute over the precision and methodology of the chemical analysis presented.
  • A key legal question will be one of indirect infringement liability: for the asserted method claims, does the complaint establish sufficient facts to suggest that Defendant, by selling the concentrate cartridges and providing the Freestyle dispensing system, actively encourages or enables its customers to perform the patented method of "flavoring water," thereby making Defendant liable for infringement?
  • A critical question for damages will be the timeline of knowledge: did the alleged 2017 communication provide Defendant with legally sufficient notice of potential infringement to trigger pre-suit damages and support a finding of willfulness, or does such exposure begin only after the formal notice letter in 2025?
Loading Amended Complaint