Converter Manufacturing v. Tekni-Plex: Federal Circuit Affirms Unpatentability
Converter Manufacturing, LLC failed to defend three thermoplastic article patents against Tekni-Plex, Inc. at the Federal Circuit. A per curiam panel affirmed the underlying unpatentability ruling across all three patents — US10189624, US10562680, and US9908281 — closing a 502-day appellate contest over formed thermoplastic packaging technology.
Three thermoplastic patents cancelled as Federal Circuit backs Tekni-Plex
Converter Manufacturing, LLC brought this appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 26 April 2023, seeking to overturn an unpatentability determination covering three of its patents: US10189624, US10562680, and US9908281. All three patents relate to formed thermoplastic articles featuring a smoothly-curved distal periphery — a product category central to flexible packaging and container manufacturing. Tekni-Plex, Inc., the appellee and a competing thermoplastics manufacturer, had successfully challenged the patents at the proceeding below.
On 9 September 2024, a per curiam Federal Circuit panel comprising Circuit Judges Dyk, Chen, and Cunningham issued a terse affirmance: ‘AFFIRMED.’ The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Unpatentable,’ confirming that the invalidity or cancellation determination against all three patents was upheld in full. For Converter Manufacturing, the affirmance extinguishes patent rights it had sought to enforce; for Tekni-Plex, the ruling eliminates the IP barrier that had been asserted against its thermoplastic product lines.
The 502-day duration from filing to decision is consistent with a moderately complex Federal Circuit appeal, suggesting the panel required thorough briefing review before reaching a unanimous, per curiam disposition — a format typically reserved for cases the court does not regard as requiring extended published analysis. The public record does not disclose the precise prior-art combinations or claim-construction issues that drove the unpatentability finding, nor whether Converter Manufacturing may seek en banc review or certiorari.
Filing to Unpatentable in 502 days
502 days from filing to Federal Circuit decision — typical Federal Circuit appeal resolves in 12–18 months
Federal Circuit affirms: what the unpatentability ruling means for both parties
What ‘AFFIRMED’ means at the Federal Circuit
An affirmance by the Federal Circuit means the panel found no reversible error in the tribunal below. The unpatentability determination — covering all three thermoplastic article patents — is now upheld at the highest specialist IP appellate level in the U.S. The per curiam format signals unanimous agreement without need for a separate authored opinion, suggesting the outcome was not considered close or legally novel.
No reversible error foundConverter Manufacturing loses all three patents
With the affirmance, Converter Manufacturing’s patents US10189624, US10562680, and US9908281 are confirmed unpatentable. The company loses the ability to assert these rights against Tekni-Plex or any other party. Further challenge options at this level are exhausted; potential next steps would require a petition for en banc rehearing at the Federal Circuit or, more remotely, a certiorari petition to the U.S. Supreme Court — both low-probability paths.
Patent rights extinguishedTekni-Plex secures freedom to operate in thermoplastic forming
Tekni-Plex emerges from this litigation with the IP barrier removed. The three patents that had potentially constrained its formed thermoplastic article product lines are now confirmed unpatentable. The affirmance strengthens Tekni-Plex’s competitive position by foreclosing future reassertion of the same rights, and the ruling may inform how competitors and customers assess Tekni-Plex’s freedom to operate in the smoothly-curved thermoplastic container segment.
Freedom to operate securedThermoplastic packaging IP landscape shifts after affirmance
The cancellation of three related thermoplastic article patents in a single proceeding signals elevated post-grant vulnerability for design-adjacent packaging patents. Competitors and entrants in the formed thermoplastic and flexible packaging sector should note that patent portfolios in this space may be susceptible to invalidity challenges. Companies holding similar patents should audit claim scope and prosecution history; those operating in the space may find expanded design freedom as a result.
Packaging IP risk elevatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Converter Manufacturing, LLC | Company | Thermoplastic article manufacturer — holder of US10189624, US10562680, and US9908281Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Tekni-Plex, Inc. | Company | Tekni-Plex, Inc. — thermoplastics and packaging materials manufacturer; successful appelleeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin D. Schwartz | Attorney | Counsel for Converter Manufacturing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph Anthony Farco | Attorney | Counsel for Converter Manufacturing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Norris McLaughlin, PA | Law Firm | Representing Converter Manufacturing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Diane Siegel Danoff | Attorney | Counsel for Tekni-Plex, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kevin M. Flannery | Attorney | Counsel for Tekni-Plex, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Luke M. Reilly | Attorney | Counsel for Tekni-Plex, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael A. Fisher | Attorney | Counsel for Tekni-Plex, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert W. Ashbrook | 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 | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order — ‘ORDERED and ADJUDGED: PER CURIAM (DYK, CHEN, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED.’ — is among the most conclusive dispositions available at the appellate level. A per curiam affirmance applies a deferential standard of review to factual findings of unpatentability while reviewing legal conclusions de novo; the panel’s unanimous, unpublished disposition suggests neither the factual nor legal questions raised on appeal were considered genuinely contestable. For Converter Manufacturing, no further avenue for reversal exists at this court level.
US10189624, US10562680 & US9908281 — Formed thermoplastic articles
The three patents at issue — US10189624 (application US15/674787), US10562680 (application US16/212846), and US9908281 (application US15/626013) — all relate to formed thermoplastic articles characterised by a smoothly-curved distal periphery. This family of patents covers manufacturing and structural features relevant to plastic container, tray, and lid production — a high-volume segment of the flexible and rigid packaging industry. The sequential application numbers suggest a continuation or continuation-in-part prosecution strategy intended to build layered claim coverage over the same core technology.
In the thermoplastic packaging sector, patents on specific geometric or forming features can create meaningful barriers for competing converters and packaging manufacturers. Converter Manufacturing’s attempt to protect smoothly-curved periphery design elements reflects a broader industry trend of patenting incremental structural differentiation in commodity packaging. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of unpatentability clears these patents from the landscape entirely, which may open design space for competitors and downstream customers who had previously needed to design around these claims or risk infringement exposure.
Should you run an FTO against US10189624, US10562680, and US9908281?
Product teams and manufacturers working with formed thermoplastic articles — including trays, lids, containers, and similar packaging formats with curved rim or periphery features — should be aware that these three patents are now confirmed unpatentable and cannot be enforced. However, Converter Manufacturing may hold related or continuation patents not subject to this proceeding. Companies developing or commercialising thermoplastic forming technology should run a full FTO to identify any surviving related rights in the family.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full patent family surrounding US10189624, US10562680, and US9908281, identify related continuations or divisionals that remain in force, and flag any overlapping third-party rights in the thermoplastic container forming space. R&D and legal teams can use Eureka to benchmark claim scope against current product designs and generate a clearance landscape report specific to smoothly-curved periphery forming technology.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10189624 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit thermoplastic and packaging patent invalidity cases
Cases where the Federal Circuit reviewed PTAB unpatentability rulings in thermoplastic article and packaging technology — relevant to the Converter Manufacturing v. Tekni-Plex outcome.
What this case signals for the thermoplastic packaging IP landscape
Three related patents, one per curiam affirmance — the Federal Circuit’s ruling reshapes the competitive IP terrain in formed thermoplastic article manufacturing.
Per curiam affirmances signal patent weakness, not just procedural closure
When the Federal Circuit issues a per curiam affirmance without a published opinion, it typically signals the panel viewed the unpatentability conclusion as straightforward. For patent holders in adjacent thermoplastic forming technology, this outcome suggests that claims relying on similar geometric or structural features may face comparable vulnerability in post-grant proceedings.
Three-patent cancellation raises portfolio concentration risk
Converter Manufacturing’s loss of all three asserted patents in a single appellate proceeding illustrates the danger of concentrating enforcement strategy around a closely related patent family. IP teams in packaging and thermoplastics should assess whether their portfolios contain similarly co-dependent claim sets that could be swept away in a single PTAB or IPR challenge.
Converter v Tekni-Plex — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of all three patents asserted by Converter Manufacturing — US10189624, US10562680, and US9908281 — in a per curiam order issued 9 September 2024. The panel of Judges Dyk, Chen, and Cunningham found no reversible error in the underlying determination, confirming that all three thermoplastic article patents are unpatentable.
Three U.S. patents were at issue: US10189624 (application US15/674787), US10562680 (application US16/212846), and US9908281 (application US15/626013). All three cover formed thermoplastic articles with a smoothly-curved distal periphery, suggesting a coordinated patent family prosecution strategy by Converter Manufacturing.
A per curiam affirmance means the Federal Circuit unanimously upheld the unpatentability finding without a separate authored opinion — typically indicating the panel viewed the result as legally clear. For Converter Manufacturing, this extinguishes all three patents. The company’s remaining options are a petition for en banc rehearing or a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, both of which face very low success rates.
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance confirms that the three asserted patents cannot be enforced against Tekni-Plex or any other party. However, freedom-to-operate analysis should also account for any related patents in Converter Manufacturing’s portfolio that were not part of this proceeding, as continuation or divisional applications may cover overlapping subject matter and remain in force.
Converter Manufacturing was represented by Benjamin D. Schwartz and Joseph Anthony Farco of Norris McLaughlin, PA. Tekni-Plex was represented by Diane Siegel Danoff, Kevin M. Flannery, Luke M. Reilly, Michael A. Fisher, and Robert W. Ashbrook of Dechert LLP.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.