Continental Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
948 F.2d 1264 (1991)
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Continental Can Company USA and Continental PET Technologies (collectively, Continental) (plaintiffs) brought a patent-infringement action against Monsanto Company and Monsanto’s successor in the plastic bottle industry, Johnson Controls, Inc. (collectively, Monsanto) (defendants). Continental’s patent-in-suit (the ‘324 patent) bore the title “Ribbed Bottom Structure for Plastic Container,” and the disclosed structure featured an array of ribs extending radially outwardly from a geometric center of a plastic bottle bottom. The ‘324 patent indicated that the disclosed structure provided combined advantages of flexibility, impact resistance, and deformation resistance. The broadest claim of the ‘324 patent (claim 1) specified that each of the ribs were hollow. Monsanto moved for a partial summary judgment of invalidity of the ‘324 patent, predicated on several grounds including two theories of patent anticipation: (1) anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by prior US patent by Marcus (the Marcus patent), and (2) anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by a plastic bottle designed by Marcus (the Marcus bottle), allegedly placed on sale ten years prior to the filing date of the application that issued as the ‘324 patent. Regarding theory (1), Monsanto contended that, even though Continental had produced evidence that the Marcus patent did not expressly disclose hollow-bottom ribs, the Marcus patent inherently disclosed such ribs, because both the bottle disclosed in the Marcus patent and the bottle disclosed in the ‘324 patent were produced by injection blow molding. Regarding theory (2), Monsanto argued that development of the Marcus bottle that occurred pursuant to agreements between Marcus’s employer, Admiral Plastics, and Coca-Cola Company triggered the § 102(b) on-sale bar, even though those agreements, while specifying commercial quantities and pricing maxima, indicated that Coca-Cola would purchase bottles from Admiral Plastics only “if a satisfactory bottle was developed.” The district court granted Monsanto’s partial summary judgment motion as to both theories, and Continental appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Newman, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 705,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 705,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,300 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.