Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation v. Crown Packaging Technology, Inc., Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc.

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee
v.
CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
CROWN CORK & SEAL USA, INC.,
Defendants-Counterclaim Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO.,
Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-2308
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio in No. 3:12-cv-00033-WHR,
Judge Walter H. Rice.
______________________
Decided: June 30, 2025
______________________
JOHN DAVID LUKEN, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Cincin-
nati, OH, argued for plaintiff-appellee and counterclaim
defendant-appellee. Also represented by OLEG KHARITON,
Case: 23-2308 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 06/30/2025

-- 1 of 12 --

BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORPORATION v.
CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC.
2
JOSHUA LORENTZ, BRIAN S. SULLIVAN; JOHN M. WHEALAN,
Chevy Chase, MD.
DANIEL J. GOETTLE, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Philadel-
phia, PA, argued for defendants-appellants. Also repre-
sented by JEFFREY LESOVITZ; LEIF R. SIGMOND, JR.,
Chicago, IL.
______________________
Before TARANTO, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
CHEN, Circuit Judge.
Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. and Crown Cork &
Seal USA, Inc. (collectively, Crown) appeal a decision of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio granting summary judgment in favor of Ball Metal
Beverage Container Corp. and Rexam Beverage Can Co.
(collectively, Ball Metal). The district court determined
that certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,935,826 (’826 pa-
tent) and 6,848,875 (’875 patent) (collectively, asserted pa-
tents) are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 21 because the
claim term “second point”/“transition”2 is indefinite. For
the reasons explained below, we affirm.
1 Paragraph 2 of 35 U.S.C. § 112 was replaced by
§ 112(b) when the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA),
Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) took effect on Sep-
tember 16, 2012. Because the applications resulting in the
’826 and ’875 patents were filed before that date, we refer
to the pre-AIA version of § 112.
2 The “second point” and “transition” both refer to
the same location—the juncture where the chuck wall ends
and the annular reinforcement bead begins. We accord-
ingly will only refer to “second point,” without quotation
marks, hereinafter.
Case: 23-2308 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 06/30/2025

-- 2 of 12 --

BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORPORATION v.
CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC.
3
BACKGROUND
The technology at issue relates to methods for joining
two parts of a beverage can—the “can body” that holds the
beverage and the “can end” that acts as a lid when affixed
to the can body.3 See ’826 patent col. 1 ll. 16–19. Crown
alleges that Ball Metal infringed its patented double seam-
ing technology, which reduces metal usage while maintain-
ing can strength. See id. col. 2 ll. 1–12.
Claim 14 of the ’826 patent is representative of the as-
serted claims of both patents.4 As claim 14 depends on
claim 13, the two claims are quoted below, with the brack-
eted language belonging to claim 13.
14. [A metal can end for use in packaging beverages
under pressure and adapted to be joined to a can
body by a seaming process so as to form a double
seam therewith using a rotatable chuck comprising
first and second circumferentially extending walls,
said first and second chuck walls forming a junc-
ture there between, said can end comprising;
a peripheral cover hook, said peripheral cover book
comprising a seaming panel adapted to be formed
into a portion of said double seam during said
seaming operation;
a central panel;
a wall extending inwardly and downwardly from
said cover hook, a first portion of said wall
3 We cite only to the ’826 patent when citing to the
written description because both parties agree that claim
14 of the ’826 patent is representative, Appellant’s Br. 14;
Appellee’s Br. 11, and because both patents have similar
written descriptions.
4 The asserted claims are claims 50, 52, 54, 56, 58
and 59 of the ’875 patent and claim 14 of the ’826 patent.
Case: 23-2308 Document: 37 Page: 3 Filed: 06/30/2025

-- 3 of 12 --

BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORPORATION v.
CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC.
4
extending from said cover hook to a first point on
said wall, said first wall portion adapted to be de-
formed during said seaming operation so as to be
bent upwardly around said juncture of said chuck
walls at said first point on said wall, a second por-
tion of said wall extending from said first point to
a second point forming a lowermost end of said
wall, a line extending between said first and second
points being inclined to an axis perpendicular to
said central panel at an angle of between 30º and
60º],
further comprising an annular reinforcing bead
connected to said wall at said second point, said an-
nular reinforcing bead connecting said wall to said
central panel.
’826 patent at claim 14 (emphases added).
Relevant to this appeal, the parties disputed whether
there are different methodologies to measure the claimed
angle “C°” shown in Figure 4 below.
’875 patent at FIG. 4 (highlights added to show C°). This
claimed angle is defined by a first point and a second point
(or a “first location” and a “transition,” respectively) that
create a diagonal line. The diagonal line is then compared
to the vertical line illustrated by h2 in the above figure; the
resulting angle is C°. See ’826 patent at claim 13.
Case: 23-2308 Document: 37 Page: 4 Filed: 06/30/2025

-- 4 of 12 --

BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORPORATION v.
CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC.
5
After several hearings, the district court granted sum-
mary judgment of invalidity for the asserted claims, con-
cluding that the claims are indefinite because there are
multiple known approaches to measuring the claimed an-
gle. J.A. 2685–86. It reviewed Crown’s prior litigations
and found that Crown’s former expert, Mr. Higham, used
different methods at different times to determine the loca-
tion of the second point in an accused product. Id. at 2685.
According to the district court, Mr. Higham used (1) the
“across from the center panel” method in this litigation;
(2) the finite element analysis in a prior litigation with Ball
Metal; and (3) the “change in geometry” test in another lit-
igation with Anheuser-Busch. Id.; see also Ball Metal Bev-
erage Container Corp. v. Crown Packaging Tech., Inc., 838
F. App’x 538, *541–42 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (Ball III). It con-
cluded 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.” J.A. 2685 (cleaned up) (cit-
ing Dow Chem. Co. v. Nova Chems. Corp., 803 F.3d 620,
634 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Due to this variance, the district
court determined that the claims are indefinite. Id. at
2686–87. Crown appealed to us, and we vacated the dis-
trict court’s indefiniteness ruling, holding that the district
court’s analysis was incomplete because “it [did] not estab-
lish in any meaningful way what material difference in an-
gle range outcome, if any, exists among [the] different
methodologies.” Ball III, 838 F. App’x at *543–44. We re-
manded to the district court so that it could determine
whether Mr. Higham’s different methods lead to materi-
ally different results for the angle of an accused product or
method such that said product or method may infringe the
claim under one method but not infringe under another.
Id. at 544.
On remand, the district court again granted summary
judgment. It reviewed expert testimonies of Crown’s cur-
rent expert, Mr. Biondich, and those of Ball Metal’s expert,
Case: 23-2308 Document: 37 Page: 5 Filed: 06/30/2025

-- 5 of 12 --

BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORPORATION v.
CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC.
6
Mr. Gillest, and held there was no genuine dispute of ma-
terial fact, finding the “‘application of the different meth-
ods’ 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.’” Ball Metal
Beverage Container Corp. v. Crown Packaging Tech., Inc.,
No. 3:12-CV-033, 2023 WL 4976547, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Aug.
3, 2023) (Decision) (quoting Ball III, 838 F. App’x at *542–
43). The district court again concluded that the asserted
claims are indefinite, thereby rendering the asserted pa-
tents invalid.
Crown now appeals the district court’s conclusion of in-
definiteness and grant of summary judgment in favor of
Ball Metal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(1).
DISCUSSION
We review a district court’s grant of summary judg-
ment under the law of the regional circuit. Lexion Med.,
LLC v. Northgate Techs., Inc., 641 F.3d 1352, 1358
(Fed. Cir. 2011). The Sixth Circuit reviews an order grant-
ing summary judgment de novo. Savage v. Gee, 665 F.3d
732, 737 (6th Cir. 2012).
The ultimate conclusion that a claim is indefinite un-
der 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 is a legal conclusion which we re-
view de novo. Eidos Display, LLC v. AU Optronics Corp.,
779 F.3d 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[A] patent is invalid
for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specifi-
cation 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). General
principles of claim construction apply to indefiniteness al-
legations. Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 783
F.3d 1374, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, as with
claim construction, for an indefiniteness inquiry, we review
Case: 23-2308 Document: 37 Page: 6 Filed: 06/30/2025

-- 6 of 12 --

BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORPORATION v.
CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC.
7
a district court’s underlying factual findings based on the
extrinsic evidence for clear error, and those based upon the
intrinsic evidence de novo. Eidos, 779 F.3d at 1364.
Crown contends that the district court erred by improp-
erly weighing evidence in favor of the movant, Ball Metal,
and granting summary judgment even though there were
genuine disputes of material fact regarding indefiniteness.
Appellant’s Br. 28–29. Crown asserts the district court
failed to consider the competing expert declarations in a
light most favorable to Crown. See, e.g., id. at 19–22, 29.
Although Crown acknowledges that “subsidiary” factual
findings made as part of a district court’s indefiniteness de-
termination should be reviewed for “clear error,” see Teva
Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 324
(2015), it argues that the material facts here are “primary
and essential” and accordingly, should instead be reviewed
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56’s “no genuine dis-
pute as to any material fact” standard. Appellant’s Br. 29–
30. We disagree.
Crown’s attempt to cabin the “clear error” standard to
only subsidiary facts, but to not extend it to ultimate facts,
contradicts Teva. Teva explained that, when the district
court relies on extrinsic evidence to make factual findings
underlying its indefiniteness determination, we must re-
view such findings for clear error under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 52(a)(6). See Teva, 574 U.S. at 324; see also
Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346
(Fed. Cir. 2015). This standard of review “applies to both
subsidiary and ultimate facts.” Teva, 574 U.S. at 324. The
Rule does not “exclude certain categories of factual find-
ings . . . . It does not divide facts into categories; in partic-
ular, it does not divide findings of fact into those that deal
with ‘ultimate’ and those that deal with ‘subsidiary’ facts.”
Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 287 (1982); see
Teva, 574 U.S. at 326.
Case: 23-2308 Document: 37 Page: 7 Filed: 06/30/2025

-- 7 of 12 --

BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORPORATION v.
CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC.
8
Although the district court combined its indefiniteness
determination and its summary judgment ruling in one or-
der, see Decision, 2023 WL 4976547 at *5–6, this does not
necessarily mean the factual findings underlying its indef-
initeness determination were made as part of the district
court’s grant of summary judgment. Instead, the district
court conducted its factual findings underlying indefinite-
ness—which applies the same principles as claim construc-
tion—under Rule 52. See Conoco, Inc. v. Energy & Env't
Int'l, L.C., 460 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A] dis-
trict court may engage in claim construction during various
phases of litigation.”). This means that we review factual
findings underpinning an indefiniteness determination un-
der the “clear error” standard, even if it is made in the same
order resolving the parties’ summary judgment motions.
See, e.g., Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc., 987 F.3d
1358, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (applies “clear error” review
to a district court decision that resolved indefiniteness is-
sue and summary judgment motions in one order); Cox
Communs., Inc. v. Sprint Commun. Co. LP, 838 F.3d 1224,
1228 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same); EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC
v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 619–20 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (same).5 In other words, although a court may grant
summary judgment based on a determination of indefinite-
ness, the determination itself is distinct from the Rule 56
analysis. See Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d
1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that the district court’s
5 Crown relies on a non-precedential opinion, Immu-
noGen, Inc. v. Hirshfeld, No. 2021-1939, 2022 WL 885774,
(Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2022), to support its argument that in-
definiteness determination at summary judgment should
be evaluated under Rule 56. Appellant’s Br. 29, 31. Immu-
nogen is inapposite, as the review of the indefiniteness de-
termination there did not apply or reference Teva’s “clear
error” standard. See ImmunoGen, Inc., 2022 WL 885774,
at *2–3; Teva, 574 U.S. at 331.
Case: 23-2308 Document: 37 Page: 8 Filed: 06/30/2025

-- 8 of 12 --

BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORPORATION v.
CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC.
9
grant of summary judgment “follow[ed] its determination
that . . . the asserted claims . . . are invalid as indefinite.”
(emphasis added)).
Here, we find the district court did not clearly err in the
subsidiary factual findings underpinning its indefiniteness
determination. Although both parties’ experts disagreed
on whether the application of Mr. Higham’s methods re-
sulted in materially different outcomes for the claim’s
scope, the district court did not clearly err in crediting the
testimony of Mr. Gillest over Mr. Biondich. See Decision,
2023 WL 4976547, at *6; see also Celsis In Vitro, Inc. v.
CellzDirect, Inc., 664 F.3d 922, 929 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The
district court has wide discretion to weigh expert credibil-
ity.”).
The record supports the court’s finding. See
J.A. 2946–64 (showing Mr. Gillest’s application of
Mr. Higham’s change-in-geometry and across-from-center-
panel methods to ten different can ends, yielding angles
within the claimed angle ranges for one method and angles
outside the claimed angle ranges for the other method).
Mr. Gillest’s expert report, for example, used Mr. Higham’s
methodology to locate the first point of the can ends.
J.A. 2782. Mr. Gillest explained that he “applied
Mr. Higham’s ‘change in geometry’ and ‘across-from-the-
center-panel’ tests to [several] can end[s]” and found mate-
rial differences between the angles measured. J.A. 2784;
see id. at 2784–802. Although Mr. Biondich disagreed with
Mr. Gillest’s methodology for locating the first and second
points of the can ends, he did so by using measurements
and methodologies that differed from Mr. Higham’s and
were contrary to our remand order. See, e.g., J.A. 3289–91.
For example, instead of applying Mr. Higham’s method to
one sample can, Mr. Biondich merely asserted there is no
first point in the can end and, “[c]onsequently, it would be
impossible to determine the angle of a line from the first
point[] to the second point[].” Id. at 3349. In another in-
stance, Mr. Biondich repositioned the first point that
Case: 23-2308 Document: 37 Page: 9 Filed: 06/30/2025

-- 9 of 12 --

BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORPORATION v.
CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC.
10
Mr. Higham placed on a can end so that the calculations of
the second point would not create materially different an-
gle measurements. See J.A. 3262–66 (disagreeing with
Mr. Higham’s “analysis as to the location of the change of
geometry of the LOF+ can end that he shows in his attach-
ment 13 to his 2003 Report”). By the same token,
Mr. Biondich focused on issues not related to our remand
order, contesting, among other things, the validity of
Mr. Higham’s methodologies instead of applying the meth-
odologies and determining if they yield materially different
results. See J.A. 3291. The district court accordingly found
under Rule 52 that Mr. Biondich’s testimony “effectively
disregarded” our remand order and therefore is not rele-
vant to the indefiniteness determination. Decision, 2023
WL 4976547, at *6. We see no error in the district court
crediting Mr. Gillest’s testimony over Mr. Biondich’s testi-
mony. See id.
Crown contends that if the district court was making
subsidiary factual findings under Rule 52, then it should
have held a hearing, “[found] the facts specially,” and
“state[d] its conclusions of law separately.” Appellant’s Re-
ply Br. 1–2 (citation omitted). We are not persuaded that
the district court abused its discretion in not holding a sep-
arate evidentiary hearing.6 “[W]e have said that district
6 Nor are we persuaded that the district court did not
find the facts specially and state its conclusion of law sep-
arately. Crown cites to Tris Pharma, Inc. v. Actavis Lab’ys
FL, Inc. for the proposition that Rule 52 “require[s] find-
ings on ‘as many of the subsidiary facts as are necessary to
disclose to the appellate court the steps by which the trial
court determined factual issues and reached its ultimate
conclusions.’” Appellant’s Reply Br. 2–3 (citing 755 F.
App’x 983, *988 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Tris Pharma is inappo-
site. Unlike in Tris Pharma, the district court here
Case: 23-2308 Document: 37 Page: 10 Filed: 06/30/2025

-- 10 of 12 --

BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORPORATION v.
CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC.
11
courts have ‘wide latitude in how they conduct the proceed-
ings before them,’ including claim-construction proceed-
ings.” UTTO Inc. v. Metrotech Corp., 119 F.4th 984, 993–
94 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (quoting Ballard Med. Prods. v. Alle-
giance Healthcare Corp., 268 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir.
2001)). While some courts have found it useful to hold
hearings before construing claims, such a procedure is not
always necessary. Ballard Med. Prods., 268 F.3d at 1358.
In this matter, we see no abuse of discretion in the dis-
trict court’s proceeding to its determinations without hear-
ing live testimony from Crown witnesses. When
responding to Ball Metal’s summary judgment motion of
invalidity under indefiniteness, Crown did not make a con-
crete case showing why such testimony was needed to re-
solve the remanded factual issues on indefiniteness. See
J.A. 3226–60; see also Southern District of Ohio Local Rule
7.1(b)(2) (where a hearing is not required by rule or law,
but allowing a party to “apply to the Court for oral argu-
ment. . . . by including the phrase ‘ORAL ARGUMENT
REQUESTED’ (or its equivalent) on the caption of a motion
or on a memorandum” and “succinctly explain[]” “[t]he
grounds for any such request.”). Instead, Crown opposed
holding an evidentiary hearing to resolve the motion in ad-
vance of trial, arguing: “[w]ere the Court to delay trial for
such a hearing, Crown may be prejudiced, particularly be-
cause two key fact witnesses retire at the end of 2023.”
J.A. 3239 n.9. At least without a concrete showing of need,
and without a concrete showing of prejudice on appeal,
Crown cannot raise this issue now.
Upon review of the record, we conclude the district
court did not clearly err in finding that the application of
the different methods of Mr. Higham resulted in materially
specifically explained and identified which arguments it
credited and which it rejected, allowing us to effectively re-
view the district court’s decision. See 755 F. App’x at *989.
Case: 23-2308 Document: 37 Page: 11 Filed: 06/30/2025

-- 11 of 12 --

BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORPORATION v.
CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC.
12
different angle ranges, rendering the asserted claims indef-
inite and the asserted patents invalid.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Crown’s remaining arguments and
find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we af-
firm.
AFFIRMED
Case: 23-2308 Document: 37 Page: 12 Filed: 06/30/2025

-- 12 of 12 --