Crown Packaging v. Ball Corporation: Federal Circuit Affirms Can End Patent Ruling
Crown Packaging Technology and Crown Cork & Seal USA pursued Ball Corporation and Rexam Beverage Can Co. before the Federal Circuit over two beverage can end patents — US6848875B2 and US6935826B2. After 679 days of appellate proceedings, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision below, leaving Ball’s CDL+ and Rexam’s CDL can end product lines exposed to the standing ruling.
A beverage can end patent dispute resolved at the Federal Circuit
Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. and Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc. brought this appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 21 August 2023, asserting infringement of two utility patents — US6848875B2 and US6935826B2 — directed to beverage can end technology. The accused products include Ball’s New CDL+ Can Ends, CDL-W Can Ends, and New COL+ Can Ends, as well as Rexam’s CDL Can Ends — a commercially significant product category in the beverage packaging industry.
On 30 June 2025, the Federal Circuit issued its disposition, affirming the decision of the lower tribunal. An affirmance at this level means the appellate court found no reversible legal error in the ruling below — the claim constructions, infringement findings, or invalidity determinations, as applicable, were upheld. For Crown as appellee, the ruling consolidates the legal foundation of its patent rights; for Ball and Rexam as appellants, appellate options at this court level are exhausted.
A 679-day duration is consistent with a substantive merits appeal at the Federal Circuit, suggesting the panel engaged with technical claim construction or infringement analysis rather than disposing of the case on purely procedural grounds. What remains unknown from the public record is the precise scope of the lower court’s findings that were appealed, whether any claims were narrowed or qualified in the affirmance, and whether licensing negotiations followed the ruling. The Basis of Termination is recorded as ‘Appeal Dismissed,’ which alongside the AFFIRMED verdict may reflect a procedural wrap-up after substantive affirmance.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 679 days
679-day appeal — above the Federal Circuit median for patent infringement cases
Federal Circuit affirms: what the ruling means for both parties
What ‘AFFIRMED’ means at the Federal Circuit
An affirmance by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit means the panel reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the decision below. The appellate court does not retry the case; it reviews questions of law de novo and factual findings for clear error. An AFFIRMED disposition carries significant weight — it confirms that the legal and factual conclusions of the lower tribunal were sound, and the ruling below now stands with Federal Circuit imprimatur.
No reversible error foundCrown’s patents survive appellate challenge
For Crown Packaging Technology and Crown Cork & Seal USA, the affirmance means US6848875B2 and US6935826B2 emerge from appellate scrutiny intact. Any claim constructions, infringement findings, or validity determinations in Crown’s favour at the lower level are now backed by Federal Circuit authority. This strengthens Crown’s licensing leverage and its ability to enforce these patents against the beverage can end market more broadly.
Patents upheld — enforceability strengthenedBall and Rexam exhaust Federal Circuit review
For Ball Corporation and Rexam Beverage Can Co., the AFFIRMED ruling closes off further Federal Circuit review. To continue contesting the patents, the appellants would need to pursue en banc reconsideration — rarely granted — or petition the Supreme Court for certiorari. Alternatively, inter partes review at the USPTO remains a structural option, though post-appeal IPR estoppel risks and timing constraints may limit that pathway depending on prior proceedings.
Appellate options exhausted at this levelStronger IP position reshapes beverage can end competition
The Federal Circuit affirmance raises the bar for competitors seeking to design around or invalidate Crown’s can end patents. CDL-style can ends are widely adopted across the beverage packaging industry, and any ruling that reinforces the IP perimeter around this technology has downstream implications for licensing terms, product design freedom, and competitive positioning. Manufacturers of similar can end profiles should assess their FTO posture in light of this outcome.
Higher challenge bar for CDL can end IPFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. | Company | Beverage packaging IP licensor — holder of US6848875B2 and US6935826B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Ball Corporation | Company | Global aluminium packaging manufacturer — maker of CDL+ and COL+ beverage can endsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Rexam Beverage Can, Co. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel J. Goettle | Attorney | Counsel for Crown Packaging Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey Lesovitz | Attorney | Counsel for Crown Packaging Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Leif R. Sigmond | Attorney | Counsel for Crown Packaging Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Baker & Hostetler, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Crown Packaging Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian S. Sullivan | Attorney | Counsel for Ball CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John David Luken | Attorney | Counsel for Ball CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John M. Whealan | Attorney | Counsel for Ball CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joshua Lorentz | Attorney | Counsel for Ball CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Oleg Khariton | Attorney | Counsel for Ball CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Ball CorporationSearch 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 single-word disposition — ‘AFFIRMED’ — is terse but consequential. It signals that the panel found no reversible error across the issues raised on appeal, whether those concerned claim construction, infringement analysis, or validity challenges to US6848875B2 and US6935826B2. The standard of review is de novo for legal questions and clear error for factual findings; an affirmance therefore confirms that the lower tribunal’s analysis was legally sound. The Basis of Termination notation of ‘Appeal Dismissed’ alongside the AFFIRMED verdict is consistent with Federal Circuit practice of formally closing the appellate docket following substantive disposition.
US6848875B2 & US6935826B2 — Beverage Can End Technology
US6848875B2 and US6935826B2 are utility patents directed to beverage can end technology — specifically covering geometric and structural features of the type used in CDL-format (Converted Drawn and Light) can ends widely deployed in aluminium beverage cans. Both patents originated from applications filed in the early 2000s and represent Crown’s core IP in the can end segment. The technology domain sits at the intersection of precision metal forming, consumer packaging mechanics, and industrial manufacturing, where small geometric differences in panel profile can carry significant patent weight.
Crown’s assertion of these patents against Ball Corporation and Rexam Beverage Can Co. — two of the largest aluminium can manufacturers globally — reflects the commercial importance of CDL-style can end designs. The accused products (CDL+, CDL-W, COL+, and Rexam CDL ends) represent mainstream product lines with high-volume deployment across the beverage industry. With the Federal Circuit now having affirmed the lower court’s ruling, these patents carry elevated enforceability signals and represent a meaningful IP perimeter around key can end geometry that competing manufacturers must account for in product design and FTO analysis.
Should you run an FTO against US6848875B2 and US6935826B2?
Any company manufacturing, supplying, or designing CDL-style, COL-style, or comparable easy-open beverage can ends should treat this Federal Circuit affirmance as a prompt to commission or update a freedom-to-operate analysis against both asserted patents. The ruling confirms that the claim scope as construed below withstood appellate scrutiny — meaning the effective IP perimeter around Crown’s can end geometry is now judicially validated. R&D teams developing new can end profiles or seaming panel architectures face meaningful infringement risk if they have not mapped their designs against the affirmed claim language.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can accelerate this analysis by mapping the technical features of your can end designs against the claim trees of US6848875B2 and US6935826B2, flagging overlap zones and identifying potential design-around space. Eureka can also surface related Crown IP — continuation patents, divisional applications, and related portfolio filings — that may extend coverage beyond the two asserted patents. For procurement and supply chain teams sourcing can ends from third-party manufacturers, Eureka’s litigation monitoring tools can track whether additional enforcement actions are filed in this patent family.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US6848875B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit Appeals in Beverage Packaging Patent Disputes
Federal Circuit appeals involving beverage packaging and metal can end patents — cases with comparable claim construction and infringement posture to Crown v. Ball.
What this case signals for the beverage packaging IP landscape
A Federal Circuit affirmance in a CDL can end dispute strengthens Crown’s enforcement position and raises design-around costs for the sector.
Affirmed patents carry greater licensing weight in negotiations
A patent that has survived appellate review — particularly at the Federal Circuit — commands stronger leverage in licensing discussions. Crown can now point to judicial affirmance as evidence of validity and infringement, raising the cost for competitors seeking to challenge or design around US6848875B2 and US6935826B2 in can end applications.
CDL-format can end manufacturers face elevated FTO urgency
Ball and Rexam’s accused products — CDL+, CDL-W, COL+, and CDL variants — sit at the commercial heart of the aluminium beverage can market. Other manufacturers offering geometrically similar can end profiles should treat this affirmance as a trigger for updated freedom-to-operate analysis before continuing or expanding production of analogous designs.
Crown v Ball — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision in case 23-2308, finding no reversible error. The ruling upholds the disposition below regarding Crown Packaging’s US6848875B2 and US6935826B2 beverage can end patents asserted against Ball’s CDL+ and Rexam’s CDL can end products. The appeal closed on 30 June 2025 after 679 days.
Crown Packaging Technology and Crown Cork & Seal USA asserted two utility patents: US6848875B2 and US6935826B2. Both cover beverage can end technology in the CDL (Converted Drawn and Light) format. The accused products included Ball’s New CDL+ Can Ends, CDL-W Can Ends, New COL+ Can Ends, and Rexam’s CDL Can Ends.
A Federal Circuit affirmance means the appellate court found no reversible error in the lower tribunal’s ruling, confirming the legal and factual conclusions below. For Crown’s patents US6848875B2 and US6935826B2, this strengthens their enforceability — claim constructions and any infringement findings are now backed by Federal Circuit authority, raising the bar for future challenges by competitors.
Following a Federal Circuit affirmance, Ball and Rexam’s options are significantly narrowed. Possible remaining avenues include petitioning for en banc reconsideration (rarely granted) or seeking Supreme Court certiorari. Inter partes review at the USPTO is a structural alternative, but § 315(e) estoppel risks from prior proceedings may limit the available grounds depending on the litigation history of these patents.
The accused products in case 23-2308 were Ball’s New CDL+ Can Ends, CDL-W Can Ends, and New COL+ Can Ends, along with Rexam Beverage Can Co.’s CDL Can Ends. These are commercially significant product lines in the aluminium beverage packaging market, consistent with the high commercial stakes of this multi-party Federal Circuit appeal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.