Zip Top, Inc. v. S.C. Johnson: Container Patent Infringement Case
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Zip Top, Inc. v. S.C. Johnson & Son |
| Case Number | 1:22-cv-05028 (N.D. Ill.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Duration | Sept 2022 – March 2024 1 year 6 months |
| Outcome | Defendant Win — Non-Infringement |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Ziploc Endurables Reusable Containers |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Consumer products company known for its distinctive zippered, collapsible silicone storage containers and bags, protected by an active patent portfolio.
🛡️ Defendant
Global household products giant and maker of the Ziploc brand, with its Ziploc Endurables line competing in the reusable container segment.
Patents at Issue
This case involved two utility patents covering reusable consumer storage container technology, a competitive market segment driven by sustainability trends.
- • US 11,383,890 — Directed to container or bag structures with specific design and functional claim elements.
- • US 11,358,755 — Similarly directed to reusable flexible storage container technology.
Designing a similar product?
Check if your container design might infringe these or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The court **denied Zip Top’s motion for summary judgment** and **granted S.C. Johnson’s motion for summary judgment on the infringement issue**. The court expressly found and declared that **S.C. Johnson’s Ziploc Endurables products do not infringe Zip Top’s ‘890 or ‘755 patents**. No damages were awarded.
Notably, the court **denied S.C. Johnson’s summary judgment motion on the invalidity counterclaims without prejudice** — meaning the case was resolved entirely on non-infringement grounds without needing to address the validity of Zip Top’s asserted patents.
Key Legal Issues
The court’s ruling turned on the **infringement issue**, specifically whether the Ziploc Endurables products met the limitations of the asserted claims. The grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant signals that the court found **no genuine dispute of material fact** regarding non-infringement, implying that the accused products clearly did not satisfy one or more claim limitations as a matter of law.
This outcome underscores how rigorous claim construction and precise application of claim language can neutralize infringement allegations at the summary judgment stage, avoiding the substantial costs and time of a full trial.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in consumer product design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View detailed claim analysis of the patents
- See key competitive insights in consumer container market
- Understand how product features differentiate from patent claims
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Broad container features
2 Patents Asserted
In reusable container tech
Design-Around Options
Effective differentiation possible
✅ Key Takeaways
Summary judgment on non-infringement is achievable with rigorous claim-element-level product analysis.
Search related case law →Courts may decline to reach invalidity when non-infringement resolves the case — structure motions accordingly.
Explore precedents →Frequently Asked Questions
Zip Top asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 11,383,890 and 11,358,755, both directed to reusable consumer storage container technology, against S.C. Johnson’s Ziploc Endurables product line.
The Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in S.C. Johnson’s favor on the infringement issue, finding that the Ziploc Endurables products do not infringe either asserted patent. The invalidity counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice as moot.
The ruling reinforces that summary judgment is a viable and effective defense strategy in consumer product patent cases when accused products can be shown not to satisfy specific patent claim limitations — even against direct market competitors.
From this case, R&D and product teams should prioritize element-by-element FTO analysis, thoroughly document design differentiation from competitor patent claims during product development, and understand that market competition alone does not create infringement risk if specific claim limitations are not met.
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
- PACER Case Docket 1:22-cv-05028
- U.S. Patent No. 11,383,890 (Google Patents)
- U.S. Patent No. 11,358,755 (Google Patents)
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- 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.