Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation v. Crown Packaging Technology, Inc., decided June 30, 2025

Case Number: 2023-2308 Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Date Decided: June 30, 2025 Judges: TARANTO, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

I. Executive Summary

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. and Rexam Beverage Can Co. (collectively, "Ball Metal"), ruling that certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,935,826 and 6,848,875 (collectively, "asserted patents") held by Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. and Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc. (collectively, "Crown") are invalid due to indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. The core issue revolves around the inability to consistently and reliably measure a crucial geometric parameter—specifically, an angle defined by a "first point" and a "second point"—within the patented beverage can seaming technology, leading to "materially different outcomes" for infringement determination depending on the measurement method used.

II. Background of the Dispute

The technology at the heart of this case concerns methods for joining two parts of a beverage can: the "can body" and the "can end." Crown alleges that Ball Metal infringed its patented double seaming technology, which is designed to "reduce metal usage while maintaining can strength."

The key patent claims, exemplified by Claim 14 of the '826 patent, describe a metal can end adapted to be joined to a can body by a seaming process. A critical element of these claims is a wall extending from a "cover hook" to a "first point," and then from the "first point" to a "second point" (or "transition"). An "annular reinforcing bead" is connected to this wall at the "second point."

The crux of the indefiniteness challenge lies in the measurement of an angle ("C°") defined by a line extending between the "first point" and the "second point," inclined to an axis perpendicular to the central panel at an angle of "between 30º and 60º."

III. Core Issue: Indefiniteness of Patent Claims

The primary legal question is whether the asserted patent claims are "indefinite" under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. A patent is indefinite if its claims, "read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." (Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014)).

The district court's initial finding of indefiniteness was vacated and remanded by the Federal Circuit in a previous appeal (Ball III), which sought a determination of whether "material difference in angle range outcome, if any, exists among different methodologies" for measuring the contested angle.

IV. Key Findings and Rationale for Affirmation

Upon remand, the district court again granted summary judgment, concluding that the claims are indefinite because multiple known approaches to measuring the claimed angle lead to materially different results. The Federal Circuit affirmed this conclusion, emphasizing the following:

• Existence of Multiple Measurement Methodologies: The district court found that Crown’s former expert, Mr. Higham, used at least three different methods at different times to determine the location of the "second point" in an accused product:

• The "across from the center panel" method (in the current litigation).

• Finite element analysis (in prior litigation with Ball Metal).

• The "change in geometry" test (in litigation with Anheuser-Busch).

• Materially Different Outcomes: The key finding, as required by the previous remand, was that these different methods "do not always produce the same results [and] the method chosen for locating the second point/transition could affect whether or not a given product infringes the claims." The court explicitly cited its prior instruction: "'application of the different methods' of Mr. Higham 'result[ed] in materially different outcomes for the claim’s scope such that a product or method may infringe the claim under one method but not infringe when employing another method.'"

• Expert Testimony Credibility: The Federal Circuit upheld the district court's decision to credit the testimony of Ball Metal's expert, Mr. Gillest, over Crown's expert, Mr. Biondich. Mr. Gillest demonstrated that applying Mr. Higham's "change-in-geometry and across-from-center-panel methods to ten different can ends, [yielded] angles within the claimed angle ranges for one method and angles outside the claimed angle ranges for the other method." Conversely, Mr. Biondich's testimony was found to have "effectively disregarded" the remand order by contesting the validity of Mr. Higham's methodologies rather than applying them and assessing the material difference in results.

• Standard of Review: The court clarified that factual findings underlying an indefiniteness determination, especially when based on extrinsic evidence (like expert testimony), are reviewed for "clear error" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6), even if the determination is made as part of a summary judgment ruling. This standard applies to "both subsidiary and ultimate facts," refuting Crown's argument for a de novo review of "primary and essential" facts.

• No Abuse of Discretion in Not Holding an Evidentiary Hearing: The Federal Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision not to hold a separate evidentiary hearing for live testimony. Crown did not make a "concrete case showing why such testimony was needed to resolve the remanded factual issues on indefiniteness" and even opposed a hearing at one point, citing potential prejudice due to witness retirements.
  

V. Conclusion

The Federal Circuit concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the application of Mr. Higham's different measurement methods resulted in materially different angle ranges for the claimed beverage can ends. This inconsistency means that those "skilled in the art" cannot determine the scope of the invention with "reasonable certainty." Consequently, the asserted claims are indefinite, rendering the '826 and '875 patents invalid. The District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Ball Metal was therefore affirmed.