Federal Circuit Affirms USPTO in Blue Buffalo Packaged Food Patent Dispute
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Blue Buffalo Enterprises, Inc. v. Derrick Brent, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property |
| Case Number | 24-1611 (Fed. Cir.) |
| Court | Federal Circuit, Appeal from USPTO/PTAB |
| Duration | Mar 2024 – Jan 2026 658 days (~22 months) |
| Outcome | USPTO Affirmed — Board’s Ruling Upheld |
| Patent at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Packaged food product and method of producing the packaged food product |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Appellant (Applicant)
A well-recognized brand in the premium pet food and specialty food product market, active in intellectual property development for proprietary formulations and packaging innovations.
🛡️ Appellee (Agency)
Represents the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the federal agency responsible for adjudicating patent applications and inter partes review proceedings, including appeals to the PTAB.
The Patent at Issue
This case involved U.S. Patent Application No. 17/136,152, published as US20220202046A1, which is directed to a **packaged food product and method of producing the packaged food product**. The core of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of key functional claim language.
- • US20220202046A1 — Packaged food product and production method
- • **Key Claim Language in Dispute:** The terms **”configured to”** and **”configured for”**
Innovating in Food Packaging?
Ensure your product descriptions support strong patent claims. Check for similar patents before finalizing your designs.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The Federal Circuit **affirmed** the USPTO Board’s decision in its entirety. The court found no reversible error in the Board’s constructions of the claim terms **”configured to”** and **”configured for,”** rejecting all of Blue Buffalo’s arguments as unpersuasive. No damages were at issue, as this was a patent prosecution/administrative appeal rather than an infringement action between private parties. The practical consequence for Blue Buffalo is that the patent application’s claims, as construed by the Board, stand.
Claim Construction Analysis: “Configured To” and “Configured For”
The central legal battleground was the Board’s interpretation of the functional claim limitations **”configured to”** and **”configured for.”** These phrases are among the most litigated terms in modern patent claim drafting. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance signals that the Board’s construction was reasonable and grounded in the intrinsic record—the claim language itself, the specification, and the prosecution history. This reinforces that patent applicants must ensure functional claim language is fully supported by the specification to resist narrow Board constructions. Ambiguity in how a product or method is “configured” creates vulnerability during examination and appeal.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis & IP Risk
This case highlights critical IP risks in food technology design and patent prosecution strategy. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation for food technology.
- View related patents in the food tech and packaging space
- See which companies are most active in packaging patents
- Understand “configured to” claim construction trends
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own food product or packaging innovation.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Functional claim language (“configured to”)
Key Claim Terms Disputed
Explicit structural support is crucial
PTAB Deference Affirmed
FC defers to Board’s reasoning
✅ Key Takeaways
Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB’s claim construction of “configured to” and “configured for” — functional limitations remain high-risk if not anchored to specification structure.
Search related case law →Blue Buffalo’s appellate arguments were unanimously rejected — intrinsic record strength is paramount in USPTO appeal practice.
Explore precedents →Food technology patent claims require particularly precise functional language given the complex interplay of structure and process.
Get claim construction insights →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved U.S. Patent Application No. 17/136,152 (published as US20220202046A1), directed to a packaged food product and method of producing the packaged food product.
The court found no error in the USPTO Board’s constructions of the claim terms “configured to” and “configured for,” affirming the Board’s decision in full after finding Blue Buffalo’s remaining arguments unpersuasive.
The decision reinforces that functional claim limitations must be carefully supported in the specification. Patent holders in the food and packaging sectors should revisit prosecution strategies to ensure claim language survives Board-level construction scrutiny.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Case 24-1611
- USPTO Public Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system — US20220202046A1
- USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) repository
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.