Converter Manufacturing v. Tekni-Plex: Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Roll Over-Wrap® Tray Patent Dispute
Converter Manufacturing sought U.S. Supreme Court review of its infringement claims against Tekni-Plex over three patents covering Roll Over-Wrap® Tray packaging technology. The Court denied the petition in 106 days, leaving the lower court outcome intact and closing the door on further federal review.
Supreme Court Closes the Door on Roll Over-Wrap® Tray Patent Dispute
Converter Manufacturing filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on February 10, 2025, seeking review of an infringement action against Tekni-Plex, Inc. concerning three patents — US10189624B2, US10562680B2, and US9908281B1 — each directed at Roll Over-Wrap® Tray packaging technology. Tekni-Plex was represented by Dechert LLP’s Diane Siegel Danoff, while Converter Manufacturing was represented by Joseph A. Farco of Bochner PLLC.
The Supreme Court denied the petition on May 27, 2025, 106 days after filing. A denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits; it signals only that the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. The practical effect is that the decision of the lower court remains undisturbed and is now final, with no further avenue for federal appellate review available to Converter Manufacturing on these claims.
The 106-day resolution is consistent with the Court’s typical processing window for cert petitions. The Court grants review in fewer than 2% of petitions filed annually, so denial is statistically expected rather than anomalous. The public record does not disclose what specific legal question Converter Manufacturing sought to have resolved, nor whether the underlying infringement claims were decided on the merits below — factors that would be material to assessing the commercial significance of the outcome.
Filing to Petition Dismissed in 106 days
106 days — Supreme Court cert petitions typically resolve within 90–120 days of docketing
Certiorari denied: what the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear this case means
Cert denial is not a merits ruling — but it is final
A denial of certiorari means the Supreme Court exercised its discretion not to review the case. It does not affirm or endorse the lower court’s reasoning. However, the practical consequence is identical to finality: no federal appellate path remains. The lower court’s disposition of the Roll Over-Wrap® Tray infringement claims is now the operative legal reality for both parties.
Petition dismissed — no merits reviewConverter Manufacturing exhausts federal review options
With the petition denied, Converter Manufacturing has no remaining avenue to seek reversal through the federal courts on these three patents. If the lower court ruled against infringement or validity, that outcome is now locked in. Future enforcement of US10189624B2, US10562680B2, and US9908281B1 against Tekni-Plex over Roll Over-Wrap® Trays would require materially different facts or a new cause of action.
No further federal appeal availableTekni-Plex secures finality against these three patent claims
Tekni-Plex benefits from the denial insofar as the lower court outcome — whatever its terms — is now final and cannot be disturbed by Converter Manufacturing through continued federal litigation. Dechert LLP’s successful opposition to Supreme Court review, if any response was filed, effectively ends this litigation chapter for Tekni-Plex across all three asserted patents.
Lower court outcome preservedPackaging sector: Roll Over-Wrap® Tray IP landscape shifts
The denial leaves the three Roll Over-Wrap® Tray patents in whatever enforceability state the lower court determined. Competitors and licensees in the flexible and rigid packaging tray segment should monitor the underlying lower court record to understand whether these patents were found valid and infringed, invalid, or non-infringed — as each outcome carries distinct freedom-to-operate implications for tray packaging product lines.
Review underlying court record for FTO impactFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Converter Manufacturing | Individual | Packaging technology company — holder of US10189624B2, US10562680B2, and US9908281B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Tekni-Plex, Inc. | Company | Tekni-Plex, Inc. — specialty packaging and materials manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph A. Farco | Attorney | Counsel for Converter ManufacturingSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bochner PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Converter ManufacturingSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Diane Siegel Danoff | Attorney | Counsel for Tekni-Plex, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dechert LLP | Law Firm | Representing Tekni-Plex, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | U.S. Supreme CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Supreme Court’s order — ‘Petition DENIED’ — is terse by design. It carries no precedential weight and does not indicate agreement or disagreement with the lower court’s analysis of the three Roll Over-Wrap® Tray patents. At the Supreme Court level, denial of certiorari is a discretionary act under 28 U.S.C. § 1254; the Court applies no formal standard of review because it is not reviewing the merits. For both parties, the operative consequence is finality: the lower court’s resolution of the infringement claims under US10189624B2, US10562680B2, and US9908281B1 governs.
US10189624B2, US10562680B2 & US9908281B1 — Roll Over-Wrap® Tray Packaging Technology
The three patents at issue — US10189624B2, US10562680B2, and US9908281B1 — are assigned to Converter Manufacturing and each relates to Roll Over-Wrap® Tray technology, a packaging format used in food, consumer goods, and industrial applications. The patents span application numbers US15/674787, US16/212846, and US15/626013, suggesting a continuation-family strategy designed to maintain layered protection across tray structures, methods of manufacture, and configuration variants.
A three-patent portfolio in a defined product category like Roll Over-Wrap® Trays is consistent with a deliberate defensive and offensive IP strategy: continuation applications filed to capture evolving product iterations and to create multiple assertion points against competitors. For packaging manufacturers and converters operating in the tray segment, the enforceability status of these patents post-litigation is material — particularly whether any claims survived or were invalidated, which would directly affect design freedom for competing tray formats.
Should you run an FTO against US10189624B2, US10562680B2, and US9908281B1?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or sourcing Roll Over-Wrap® Tray packaging — or structurally similar tray formats — should assess exposure under these three Converter Manufacturing patents. The Supreme Court denial closes the litigation between these specific parties but does not extinguish the patents. If the underlying proceeding found the patents valid, they remain enforceable assets against other parties in the packaging sector.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10189624B2, US10562680B2, and US9908281B1 against your product specifications, flag prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and surface any continuation or divisional applications in the same family that could present additional risk. For R&D teams designing tray packaging formats, an early FTO analysis is substantially cheaper than downstream litigation exposure.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10189624B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Cases: Packaging Tray Technology Infringement Disputes
Explore comparable packaging tray patent infringement cases litigated at the district and appellate level, including Supreme Court cert petition outcomes in the packaging sector.
What this case signals for the packaging technology IP landscape
A Supreme Court cert denial on packaging tray patents reinforces that lower court outcomes in this sector are increasingly difficult to dislodge.
Cert denial sets a hard ceiling on patent enforcement campaigns
Once the Supreme Court declines review, the patent holder’s enforcement leverage on those specific claims against that defendant is exhausted. Companies asserting packaging technology patents should model litigation strategy to succeed at the district and circuit level — Supreme Court review is not a reliable backstop.
Three-patent portfolios create layered risk even after denial
Converter Manufacturing asserted three patents covering Roll Over-Wrap® Tray technology. Even with this petition denied, the underlying patent portfolio may retain enforceability against different defendants or products. Competitors should audit whether US10189624B2, US10562680B2, and US9908281B1 were found invalid or merely non-infringed.
Manufacturing v Tekni-Plex — key questions answered
The denial means the Supreme Court declined to review the case. It is not a ruling on the merits of the Roll Over-Wrap® Tray patent infringement claims. The lower court’s decision is now final. Converter Manufacturing has no remaining federal appellate remedy against Tekni-Plex on these three patents.
Converter Manufacturing asserted three patents: US10189624B2, US10562680B2, and US9908281B1. All three cover Roll Over-Wrap® Tray packaging technology and derive from application numbers US15/674787, US16/212846, and US15/626013 respectively, suggesting a continuation patent family strategy.
No. A denial of certiorari has no effect on patent validity. The patents remain in force unless cancelled or found invalid in a separate proceeding such as an IPR at the USPTO or a district court invalidity ruling. The public record of this Supreme Court petition does not disclose the validity findings from the lower court.
The petition was filed February 10, 2025 and denied May 27, 2025 — a span of 106 days. This is consistent with the Supreme Court’s typical processing timeline for certiorari petitions, which generally resolve within 90 to 120 days of docketing.
Converter Manufacturing was represented by Joseph A. Farco of Bochner PLLC. Tekni-Plex, Inc. was represented by Diane Siegel Danoff of Dechert LLP. Dechert LLP is a global law firm with significant appellate and IP litigation capability, consistent with Supreme Court-level patent defense work.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.