Clearly Clean Products LLC v. Tekni Plex Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Clearly Clean Products, LLC (Connecticut) and Converter Manufacturing, LLC (Pennsylvania)
  • Defendant: Tekni-Plex, Inc. (Delaware) and Dolco, LLC (subsidiary of Tekni-Plex)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Bochner PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:20-cv-04723, E.D. Pa., 03/16/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because Defendants have committed acts of patent infringement in the District and reside there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' rolled-edge rigid plastic food trays infringe five patents related to the design and manufacturing methods for such trays, which are marketed as a recyclable alternative to traditional foam packaging.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns thermoformed plastic food trays, specifically those made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET), with a rolled-edge design intended to solve longstanding industry problems of sharp edges and insufficient rim strength.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that shortly after the initial suit was filed, Defendants sought Inter Partes Review (IPR) of the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,908,281 and 10,189,624. An unrelated third party also sought IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,562,222, which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied. The complaint also alleges that Defendants developed their competing product after entering into a Non-Disclosure Agreement with Plaintiffs and receiving confidential information and product samples.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,908,281 - "Formed Thermoplastic Article Having Smooth Edges"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: For decades, food products like meat and poultry have been packaged on polystyrene foam trays, which are not practically recyclable and present an environmental hazard Compl. ¶¶20-22 Alternatives made from recyclable plastics like polyethylene terephthalate (PET) were not widely used for food trays because the thermoforming and cutting process creates sharp peripheral edges that can puncture the thin plastic films used for wrapping Compl. ¶31 These cut edges also tended to lack sufficient rigidity for many tray applications Compl. ¶31
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a thermoformed plastic tray with a specially designed rolled edge. This structure displaces the sharp, cut edge of the plastic away from the tray's periphery and tucks it inward, creating a smooth, rounded rim that will not abrade or cut plastic overwrap films Compl. ¶32 The geometry of the rolled edge, described as a "bent portion" interconnected with the tray body, also generates a curved rim that exhibits "substantially greater edge strength/stiffness" than a simple cut edge, solving the rim-strength problem Compl. ¶32 '865 Patent, col. 3:50-54
• Technical Importance: This design enabled the use of recyclable PET for food trays intended to be sealed with fragile plastic films, providing a viable, environmentally preferable alternative to non-recyclable foam trays Compl. ¶32

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least dependent Claim 18, which depends from Claim 14, which in turn depends from independent Claim 1 Compl. ¶¶81-84
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • An article formed from a thermoformable sheet.
  • The article comprises a body having the shape of a rounded rectangular tray with a concave compartment.
  • An extension extending peripherally away from the body, which includes the peripheral edge of the sheet.
  • A bent portion is interposed between the peripheral edge and the junction between the body and the extension.
  • The bent portion has a smooth periphery and is sufficiently bent that the peripheral edge is displaced from the periphery of the article. Compl. ¶84
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but the infringement count is directed to "at least claim 18" Compl. ¶81

U.S. Patent No. 10,189,624 - "Tray-Shaped Article Having Smooth Edges and Amenable to Multiple Film Sealing Methods"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Different food packaging technologies-such as overwrap (OW), vacuum-sealed packaging (VSP), and modified atmosphere packaging (MAP)-have different geometric requirements for the trays they use '624 Patent, col. 2:54-58 For example, MAP sealing often requires a broad, flat rim to which a film can be sealed '624 Patent, col. 3:20-24 An article useful for one sealing process is often poorly suited for others, limiting a tray's versatility '624 Patent, col. 2:54-58
• The Patented Solution: This patent describes a tray with a specific rim geometry that is "amenable to multiple film sealing methods" '624 Patent, title The invention includes a "flat sealing surface" surrounding the concave portion, making it suitable for VSP and MAP sealing, combined with a rolled-edge structure (a "bent portion" separated from the bend region by a "spacer") that displaces the sharp peripheral edge, making it suitable for overwrap (OW) sealing Compl. ¶102 '624 Patent, abstract
• Technical Importance: This integrated design purports to create a single tray suitable for the three primary sealing technologies in the food packaging industry, increasing manufacturing efficiency and supply chain flexibility '624 Patent, col. 3:37-43

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 27 Compl. ¶100
• The essential elements of independent Claim 27 include:
  • A tray intended to be suitable for use in OW, VSP, and MAP sealing technologies.
  • The tray is an article formed from a thermoplastic sheet comprising a tray-shaped body with a concave portion.
  • An extension extending peripherally from the concave portion, which includes:
    • the peripheral edge.
    • a flat sealing surface suitable for VSP and MAP sealing.
    • a bend region adjacent the sealing surface with the conformation of a smooth curve.
    • a bent portion turned at least approximately opposite the periphery.
    • a spacer separating the bent portion from the bend region. '624 Patent, col. 42:25-50
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but the infringement count is directed to "at least claim 27" Compl. ¶100

U.S. Patent No. 10,076,865 - "Ram-Based Methods For Forming Thermoplastic Article Having Smooth Edges"

• Technology Synopsis: The '865 Patent claims a method of making a tray-shaped article with a smooth periphery. The method involves impinging a formed thermoplastic sheet against a shaped ram to curl the peripheral edge and a "spacer" inwardly, and then heating and cooling the edge to set the shape '865 Patent, abstract Compl. ¶116
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 Compl. ¶115
• Accused Features: Defendants are accused of using the patented method to manufacture their "DOLCO Tray" products Compl. ¶117 Compl. ¶119

U.S. Patent No. 10,399,268 - "Ram-Based Methods For Forming Thermoplastic Article Having Smooth Edges"

• Technology Synopsis: The '268 Patent claims a method of making a tray-shaped article with a smooth periphery by impinging a thermoplastic sheet against a ram. The method involves deflecting a "spacer" portion inwardly to increase an "offset angle" to greater than 90 degrees while heating at least a portion of the spacer to its glass transition temperature '268 Patent, abstract Compl. ¶136
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 Compl. ¶134
• Accused Features: Defendants are accused of using the patented method, including a ram or its equivalents, to form the inwardly-deflected spacer portion on their "DOLCO Tray" products Compl. ¶137 Compl. ¶140

U.S. Patent No. 10,562,222 - "Formed Thermoplastic Article Having Smooth Edges"

• Technology Synopsis: The '222 Patent claims a method of making a shaped article with a smooth periphery. The method involves forming a thermoplastic sheet into a body and a "deflectable flange," then impinging a ram against the flange to deflect a "spacer" toward an "extension" while heating a "bent portion" to its glass transition temperature '222 Patent, abstract Compl. ¶154
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 6 Compl. ¶152
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the cross-sectional profile of the accused products demonstrates that Defendants use a ram or equivalent to deflect the spacer and bend portions of the flange as claimed Compl. ¶157 Compl. ¶158

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are clear, rolled-edge rigid plastic food trays bearing the trade name "DOLCO" and the designation "1024-R15" molded into the tray, referred to as the "DOLCO Tray" Compl. ¶13 Compl. ¶62

Functionality and Market Context

The DOLCO Trays are manufactured from polyethylene terephthalate (PET), a thermoformable material Compl. ¶86 They feature a concave compartment for holding food products and a rolled-over edge structure around the periphery Compl. ¶¶85-88 The complaint alleges these trays are marketed to and used by food packagers, including former customers of the Plaintiffs, for packaging products like chicken sold in retail markets such as Whole Foods and Trader Joe's Compl. ¶62 Compl. ¶65 The complaint alleges the DOLCO Trays are "essentially identical in size, shape, contour, form, transparency, and appearance" to Plaintiffs' own products Compl. ¶63

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,908,281 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis for the asserted dependent claim 18 will center on whether the accused "DOLCO Tray" incorporates a "rounded stacking extension of the rolled over edge" Compl. ¶82 The complaint alleges the accused products have this feature on their long, straight sides Compl. ¶90, which raises a factual question of whether this structure meets the claim's definition of a stacking extension.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's theory relies on a visual and structural identity between the patented invention and the accused product. A central technical question will be whether discovery reveals any subtle but material differences in the geometry, dimensions, or manufacturing process of the DOLCO Tray's rolled edge that would differentiate it from the specific structures recited in the claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,189,624 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central issue may be the construction of the functional limitation "suitable for use in any or all of" the three listed sealing technologies. A dispute may arise over what specific technical characteristics are required to be "suitable," and whether the accused product's design, particularly its "flat sealing surface," meets the criteria for both VSP and MAP sealing as claimed.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 27 recites specific geometric relationships, such as a "spacer separating the bent portion from the bend region" and a bend region with a "radius of curvature not less than 0.5 millimeters" Compl. ¶103 A technical question for the court will be whether the accused product's physical structure, upon detailed measurement and analysis, contains these distinct elements with the claimed dimensions and spatial relationships.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For U.S. Patent No. 9,908,281

• The Term: "rounded stacking extension" (from Claim 18)
• Context and Importance: This term appears in the asserted dependent claim and describes a feature that allegedly allows trays to be stacked without nesting too tightly, while omitting conventional "stacking lugs" Compl. ¶35 Compl. ¶90 The presence or absence of a structure meeting this definition in the accused product appears central to the infringement allegation for Claim 18. Practitioners may focus on this term because it adds a specific functional and structural limitation beyond the basic rolled-edge of Claim 1.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "stacking extensions" simply as "portions of the rolled edge having a height greater than other portions" Compl. ¶35 This functional definition could support a broad reading on any portion of the rim that is locally elevated.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The '865 Patent (from the same family) discusses stacking extensions in the context of corners (e.g., "a stacking lug, which is a portion of the corner of the tray") '865 Patent, col. 7:6-9 This could support an argument that the term is limited to structures at the corners of the tray, whereas the complaint alleges infringement based on extensions on the "long, straight sides" Compl. ¶90

For U.S. Patent No. 10,189,624

• The Term: "suitable for sealing a sealing film thereto using either of VSP and MAP sealing technologies" (from Claim 27)
• Context and Importance: This functional language is a core part of the independent claim's preamble and body, distinguishing it from prior art trays designed for only one sealing method. The case may turn on whether the accused product's "flat sealing surface" is technically "suitable" for both advanced packaging methods as the patent defines them.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The '624 patent describes the requirements for VSP and MAP sealing in general terms. For MAP, it requires a "planar surface (e.g., a broad, flat rim)" to which a film can be sealed '624 Patent, col. 3:20-22 This could support a reading that any sufficiently flat rim surface is "suitable."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification distinguishes the different sealing processes, noting VSP involves adhering film against a face while MAP involves sealing film about a perimeter '624 Patent, col. 2:16-43 A defendant may argue that "suitable" requires more than just a flat surface, but specific properties of rigidity, surface texture, or dimensions optimized for the distinct pressures and processes of both VSP and MAP, which the accused product may not possess.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement, stating that Defendants make, sell, and offer for sale the Accused Products to distributors and retailers for resale to the public, knowing that the end-users' and resellers' activities constitute infringement Compl. ¶92 Compl. ¶107 Compl. ¶126 Compl. ¶144 Compl. ¶162
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. It alleges Defendants were told about the '281 Patent and related applications during business discussions in 2018 Compl. ¶55 It further alleges knowledge based on a March 2020 cease-and-desist letter from Plaintiffs' counsel and the filing of the lawsuit itself, despite which Defendants allegedly continued their infringing activities Compl. ¶91 Compl. ¶106 Compl. ¶125 Compl. ¶143 Compl. ¶161

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

• A core issue will be one of structural and methodological identity: given the allegation that Defendants developed the accused trays after receiving Plaintiffs' proprietary information and product samples, a central question for the court will be a factual determination of whether the accused "DOLCO Tray" is, as alleged, "essentially identical" to the patented article and produced by the patented methods. This will involve a granular comparison of the specific geometries, curves, and angles that define the claimed "rolled-over edge," "spacer," and "stacking extension."
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional capability: does the accused tray's "flat sealing surface" actually perform and meet the technical requirements to be considered "suitable for" the distinct processes of both vacuum-sealed packaging (VSP) and modified-atmosphere packaging (MAP) as required by the '624 Patent? This may require expert testimony on the specific demands of each packaging technology and whether the accused product's design satisfies them.
• A significant background factor will be the interplay between patent infringement and alleged trade secret misappropriation: the complaint's narrative that the accused product was developed following confidential disclosures under an NDA will likely frame the dispute. While legally distinct from the patent claims, this context raises a fundamental question of whether the accused product is a legitimate independent design or a direct copy of Plaintiffs' patented technology.