Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01305/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01305-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
EasyPak, LLC
Appellee
Inline Plastics Corp.
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

INLINE PLASTICS CORP., 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

EASYPAK, LLC, 

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-1305

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Massachusetts in No. 4:11-CV-11470-TSH, 

Judge Timothy S. Hillman.

______________________ 

Decided: August 27, 2015

______________________ 

ADAM PHILLIP SAMANSKY, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, 

Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., Boston, MA, argued for plaintiffappellant. Also represented by PETER CUOMO; BARRY 

KRAMER, DAVID JOHN SILVIA, Edwards Wildman Palmer 

LLP, Stamford, CT. 

CRAIG M. SCOTT, Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP, Providence, RI, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by CHRISTINE K. BUSH; ANASTASIA ANDREYEVNA 

DUBROVSKY, Scott & Bush, Ltd., Providence, RI. 

______________________ 

Case: 14-1305 Document: 50-2 Page: 1 Filed: 08/27/2015
2 INLINE PLASTICS CORP. v. EASYPAK, LLC

Before NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Inline Plastics Corporation sued EasyPak, LLC for infringement of United States Patent No. 7,118,003 (the 

’003 patent) and No. 7,073,680 (the ’680 patent), directed 

to tamper-resistant plastic food containers. Following the 

district court’s claim construction, Inline moved for entry 

of final judgment of non-infringement of its ’003 patent, 

on the premise that the claims as construed are not 

infringed. Inline also granted EasyPak a covenant not to 

sue on the ’680 patent. The district court then entered 

final judgment of non-infringement of the ’003 patent, 

dismissed without prejudice EasyPak’s declaratory judgment counterclaims for invalidity, and dismissed Inline’s 

count for infringement of the ’680 patent with prejudice.1

Inline appeals the district court’s construction of the 

claims of the ’003 patent, stating that the terms “frangible 

section” and “tamper evident bridge” were incorrectly 

construed. We conclude that, on the facts and specification of the ’003 patent, the district court erred in limiting 

the claims to a specific embodiment, for the invention as 

claimed is supported by the patent’s broader disclosure. 

We vacate the judgment of non-infringement of the ’003 

patent, and remand for determination of infringement in 

accordance with the corrected claim construction. 

THE ’003 PATENT

The patented products are plastic food containers having the described tamper-evident and tamper-resistant 

features. The containers have a hinged plastic bridge 

between the top and bottom portions of the container, the 

bridge having a frangible section that must be severed in 

1 Inline Plastics Corp. v. EasyPak, LLC, No. 11-

11470-TSH, 2014 WL 297224 (D. Mass. Jan. 24, 2014).

 

Case: 14-1305 Document: 50-2 Page: 2 Filed: 08/27/2015
INLINE PLASTICS CORP. v. EASYPAK, LLC 3

order to open the container. Thus, tampering or opening 

of the container is readily evident.

Figure 1 of the ’003 patent shows an embodiment of 

the tamper-resistant container, having a cover portion 12

and a base portion 14 joined by a hinge 16. The hinge 

includes a tamper-evident pull strip 18, which upon 

removal severs the connection between cover 12 and base 

14: 

The parties agree that claims 1 and 2 are representative: 

1. A tamper-resistant/evident container comprising:

a) a plastic, transparent cover portion including an outwardly extending peripheral flange;

b) a base portion including an upper peripheral edge forming at least in part an upwardly projecting bead extending substantially about the 

perimeter of the base portion and configured to 

render the outwardly extending flange of the covCase: 14-1305 Document: 50-2 Page: 3 Filed: 08/27/2015
4 INLINE PLASTICS CORP. v. EASYPAK, LLC

er portion relatively inaccessible when the container is closed; and

c) a tamper evident bridge connecting the cover portion to the base portion.

2. A tamper-resistant/evident container as recited 

in claim 1, wherein the tamper evident bridge includes a hinge joining the outwardly extending 

flange of the cover portion with the base portion, 

the hinge including a frangible section, which upon severing, provides a projection that extends out 

beyond the upwardly projecting bead of the upper 

peripheral edge of the base portion, for facilitating 

removal of the cover portion from the base portion 

to open the container.

EasyPak’s accused containers embody all of the elements 

of claims 1 and 2. However, the EasyPak frangible section has a single score line along which the cover is severed from the base, whereas the ’003 patent’s preferred 

embodiment, as shown in Figure 1, has two score lines at 

the frangible section. The district court construed “frangible section” to mean “a removable tear strip, delimited 

by at least two severable score lines.” Inline Plastics 

Corp. v. EasyPak, LLC, No. 11-cv-11470-TSH, 2013 WL 

2395998, at *10 (D. Mass. Jan. 22, 2013) (“Claim Construction Order”).

The district court acknowledged that it limited the 

claims to the embodiment shown in Figure 1, and stated 

that “declarations made during patent prosecution to 

surpass the prior art reveal a definitive focus on the 

removability of the frangible section and thus clearly and 

unambiguously disavow any other embodiment to the 

contrary.” Claim Construction Order, at *6. The district 

court recognized that claims 1 and 2 did not contain a 

limitation to two severable score lines, but reasoned that

the prosecution history supported this limitation. That is 

the issue on appeal.

Case: 14-1305 Document: 50-2 Page: 4 Filed: 08/27/2015
INLINE PLASTICS CORP. v. EASYPAK, LLC 5

DISCUSSION

The district court’s claim construction is reviewed as

set forth in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, 

Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015). “[W]hen the district court 

reviews only evidence intrinsic to the patent (the patent 

claims and specifications, along with the patent’s prosecution history), the judge’s determination will amount solely 

to a determination of law, and the Court of Appeals will 

review that construction de novo.” Id. at 841. Relevant 

factual determinations based on extrinsic evidence, such 

as prior art and expert testimony, are reviewed under the 

standard of clear error. Id.

A 

FRANGIBLE SECTION

Applying these criteria, Inline argues that “frangible 

section” was incorrectly construed as requiring at least 

two score lines at the hinge. Inline states that “frangible 

section” should be construed to mean a “section of material that includes at least one score line or at least one 

perforation line.” Inline points out that nothing in the 

specification, the prosecution history, or the prior art 

limits “frangible section” by the number of score lines by 

which the frangible section is severed.

The ’003 specification describes the invention’s features as “intended to prevent and deter opening container 

10 without first removing frangible strip 18 from hinge 

16.” ’003 Patent, col.5 ll.65–67. The specification describes the preferred embodiment as:

Preferably, frangible strip 18 is limited at least in 

part by a pair of parallel score lines 42a, 42b or 

areas that have been weakened or stressed during 

the forming process.

Case: 14-1305 Document: 50-2 Page: 5 Filed: 08/27/2015
6 INLINE PLASTICS CORP. v. EASYPAK, LLC

Id. at col.6 ll.24–26. The specification also states that a 

single score line or perforation is an alternative embodiment:

Alternatively, the integral hinge 16 could be 

formed with a single score line or perforation line, 

rather than a pair of score lines. In this instance, 

the single score line could be severed to create a 

pair of projections which would be used to open 

the container.

Id. at col.6 ll.33–37. 

Despite this explicit disclosure of an alternative single 

score line, the district court limited “frangible section” to 

require at least two score lines. No prior art or prosecution argument underlays this limitation. The district 

court referred only to the frequency with which the specification described the frangible section as having two 

score lines that form a severable strip.

Here, the preferred embodiment is not described as 

having certain unique characteristics of patentable distinction from other disclosed embodiments. Nor are other 

embodiments inadequately described in relation to the 

principles of the invention. Absent such traditional 

aspects of restrictive claim construction, the patentee is 

entitled to claim scope commensurate with the invention 

that is described in the specification. See Phillips v. AWH 

Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[A]lthough 

the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned 

against confining the claims to those embodiments.”). 

EasyPak states that the prosecution history supports 

construction of “frangible section” to require at least two 

score lines. This argument is devoid of support in the 

prosecution history. The examiner did not require such 

limitation, and it was not a condition of patentability. 

There is no prosecution history disclaimer, which requires 

Case: 14-1305 Document: 50-2 Page: 6 Filed: 08/27/2015
INLINE PLASTICS CORP. v. EASYPAK, LLC 7

clear and deliberate disavowal. See, e.g., Omega Eng’g, 

Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003); 

Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 833 

(Fed. Cir. 2003) (“We therefore do not consider the applicants’ statement to be a clear and unambiguous disavowal 

of claim scope as required to depart from the meaning of 

the term provided by the written description.”).

During prosecution, the examiner initially rejected 

claims 1 and 2 as anticipated by either of U.S. Patent No. 

5,507,406 (Urciuoli) or German Patent DE 7816353 

(Menshen), and rejections on the ground of obviousness 

were based on these references and also in view of U.S. 

Patent No. 4,535,889 (Terauds). In response, Inline 

emphasized that no reference showed a frangible section 

which, upon severing, “provides a projection that extends 

out beyond the upwardly projecting bead of the upper 

peripheral edge of the base portion for facilitating removal of the cover portion from the base portion to open the 

container.” App. No. 10/895,687, Amendment and Response 15 (Jan. 17, 2006). Inline described Urciuoli’s 

frangible section as “a perforated line, a groove or the like 

around the receptacle 210 in the outer segment 222.” Id.

at 9.

EasyPak states that Inline distinguished its invention 

from Urciuoli on the basis that Urciuoli’s frangible section 

features a single perforated line. We cannot find such a 

statement in either the reference or the prosecution 

history. Inline’s description of Uricuoli as containing a 

“perforated line, a groove or the like,” was not the basis of 

Inline’s distinction. To the contrary, Inline distinguished 

its invention from Urciuoli on the basis that “[n]owhere in 

[Urciuoli] is there any disclosure, teaching or suggestion 

to modify the container therein to provide a tamper 

evident bridge that connects a cover portion to a base 

portion.” Id. 

Case: 14-1305 Document: 50-2 Page: 7 Filed: 08/27/2015
8 INLINE PLASTICS CORP. v. EASYPAK, LLC

As depicted in Urciuoli Figure 2, the lid 250 nests 

within the edge or lip 222 of the container portion 210. 

The frangible breakpoint 235 in Urciuoli is located in this 

lip section that lies around the container. To open the 

container of Urciuoli, a user applies pressure to a handle 

215 on the container portion, breaks the frangible section, 

and lifts the lid portion out from its nesting position in

the container portion.

The device of the ’003 patent, unlike that of Urciuoli, 

has a hinge formed by outwardly extending edges on both 

the cover and base portions. The distinction between 

Urciuoli and the ’003 device has no relation to the number 

of score lines on a tear strip, but rather to differences in 

the structure and opening mechanism as a whole. The 

Urciuoli structure indeed shows when tampering has 

occurred, but by a different mechanism. The number of 

score lines in the frangible lip of Urciuoli is not part of the 

tamper-evidencing mechanism.

EasyPak also argues that the declarations that Inline 

submitted to the PTO limit the claims to a tear strip 

having two score lines. That is an inaccurate description 

of the declarations. Inline submitted a declaration of 

Edward Colombo, a Director on Inline’s Board, who 

described Inline’s commercially successful containers as 

Case: 14-1305 Document: 50-2 Page: 8 Filed: 08/27/2015
INLINE PLASTICS CORP. v. EASYPAK, LLC 9

having a frangible hinge with a removable tear strip. 

App. No. 10/895,687, Decl. of Edward A. Colombo 4 (Jan. 

17, 2006). His statements describe the commercial embodiments and focused on the long-felt need met by Inline’s commercial products:

The containers disclosed in this patent application 

meet the long-felt needs identified above because 

they utilize a geometry that is suitable for thermoforming containers from a sheet of plastic material. Even more importantly, the containers 

disclosed herein can be thermoformed from a single piece of material, such as a single sheet of 

plastic. This material can be transparent. One of 

the structural features of the container that 

makes this single piece formation possible is the 

skirt that depends down from the peripheral rim 

of the container. This skirt is formed to have a 

vertical height that directly correlates with the 

height of a frangible hinge that includes a tear 

strip.

Id. Mr. Colombo did not address the number of score 

lines in the frangible section. 

In correspondence with the PTO, Inline discussed the 

advantages of its structure. Inline explained that by 

having a “cover that is very difficult to open without 

removing the tamper-evident bridge connecting the cover 

to the base portion, pilferage is substantially reduced.” 

App. No. 10/895,687, Supplemental Response 3 (Mar. 3, 

2006). Inline also filed a declaration of its Vice President 

of Sales, August Lanzetta, and a statement from a customer, Arcade Industries, Inc. Both Mr. Lanzetta and 

Arcade Industries describe the Inline containers as featuring removable tear strips. Those declarations, like

that of Mr. Colombo, focused on the commercial success of 

Inline’s product, not the scope of the claims. 

Case: 14-1305 Document: 50-2 Page: 9 Filed: 08/27/2015
10 INLINE PLASTICS CORP. v. EASYPAK, LLC

The patent examiner placed no emphasis on the number of severable lines. In allowing the claims, the examiner explained: “The container also includes a tamper 

evident feature, such as a tear strip, connecting the cover 

portion to the base portion.” App. No. 10/895,687, Final 

Rejection 2 (June 19, 2006). There is no discussion in the 

specification or the prosecution history of any patentability reliance on the number of score lines by which the 

frangible section is severed.

Thus Inline proposes that the correct construction of

“frangible section” is “a section of material that includes 

at least one score line or at least one perforation line,” and 

refers to the doctrine of claim differentiation. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“[T]he presence of a dependent 

claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a 

presumption that the limitation in question is not present 

in the independent claim.”). Claim 2 of the ’003 patent, 

recited ante, includes the frangible limitation: 

the hinge including a frangible section, which upon severing, provides a projection . . . for facilitating removal of the cover portion from the base 

portion to open the container.

Claim 4 depends from claim 2 and is specific to the embodiment of two parallel score lines:

4. A tamper-resistant/evident container as recited 

in claim 2, wherein the frangible section of the 

hinge is delimited at least in part by a pair of parallel score lines.

Since the specification explicitly mentions the “alternative” of “a single score line or perforation line, rather than 

a pair of score lines,” col.6 ll.33–37, there can be no debate 

concerning the application of the doctrine of claim differentiation, see Tandon Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 

831 F.2d 1017, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“There is presumed 

Case: 14-1305 Document: 50-2 Page: 10 Filed: 08/27/2015
INLINE PLASTICS CORP. v. EASYPAK, LLC 11

to be a difference in meaning and scope when different 

words or phrases are used in separate claims.”).

Thus we correct the district court’s claim construction, 

and construe “frangible section” to mean “a section of 

material that includes at least one score line or at least 

one perforation line.”

B 

TAMPER EVIDENT BRIDGE

The term “tamper evident bridge” was not in the ’003 

specification as filed. It was added to the claims during 

prosecution to distinguish the Urciuoli reference. When 

the term was added, Inline explained that Urciuoli does 

not show a tamper evident bridge that connects the cover 

to the base, and that the container in Urciuoli would have 

to be completely redesigned to accommodate the tamper 

evident bridge structure of the ’003 patent.

The district court construed the term “tamper evident 

bridge” to mean “a structure that connects the lid and 

base portions of the container and also contains a removable tear strip, delimited by at least two severable score 

lines, which once removed provides evidence that tampering has occurred.” Claim Construction Order, at *10. 

Except for the limitation of two score lines, which derives

from the district court’s construction of “frangible section,” 

we discern no error in this construction. Thus we reconstruct “at least two” in the Claim Construction Order to 

“at least one.” 

CONCLUSION

We have corrected the claim construction, whereby

claims 1 and 2 are not restricted to the presence of at 

least two score lines or perforation lines. On this claim 

construction, the judgment of non-infringement of the ’003 

patent cannot stand. We vacate that judgment, and 

Case: 14-1305 Document: 50-2 Page: 11 Filed: 08/27/2015
12 INLINE PLASTICS CORP. v. EASYPAK, LLC

remand for further proceedings based on the correct claim 

construction as set forth herein. 

REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND 

REMANDED

Case: 14-1305 Document: 50-2 Page: 12 Filed: 08/27/2015