Zip Top v. S.C. Johnson — Federal Circuit Affirms Non-Infringement of Container Patents
Zip Top, Inc. brought an infringement action against S.C. Johnson & Son over two patents covering flexible container technology, asserting that SCJ’s Ziploc® Endurables™ products fell within their claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement, closing the case after 631 days.
Zip Top’s Endurables infringement claim fails at every level
Zip Top, Inc., holder of US11383890B2 and US11358755B2 covering flexible, self-standing container designs, filed suit against S.C. Johnson & Son alleging that SCJ’s Ziploc® Endurables™ line of reusable silicone containers infringed those patents. The case was litigated at the district court level before reaching the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under case number 24-1661, filed on 8 April 2024.
The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement in SCJ’s favour — a ruling that Zip Top challenged on appeal. The Federal Circuit, after reviewing the record, found no reversible error in the district court’s claim construction or application of the non-infringement standard, and affirmed the judgment in full. For Zip Top, the affirmance exhausts appellate options at this court level; for SCJ, the Ziploc® Endurables™ product line is cleared of the asserted patent claims without any damages liability.
The 631-day duration from filing to closure suggests the appeal involved substantive briefing rather than a rapid procedural dismissal, consistent with a contested claim construction dispute. The public record does not disclose the precise claim element(s) that drove non-infringement, nor whether Zip Top’s patents were themselves challenged on validity grounds — leaving open the question of how broadly the patents can be enforced against other competitors in the reusable container space.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 631 days
631 days — longer than the median Federal Circuit appeal lifecycle of roughly 400–500 days
Federal Circuit affirms: what the non-infringement ruling means for both parties
Affirmance means no reversible error was found below
When the Federal Circuit affirms, it holds that the district court committed no reversible error — whether in claim construction, application of the summary judgment standard, or evaluation of the evidence. It is not a fresh ruling on the merits; it validates the legal framework applied below. For patent cases, affirmance of a non-infringement summary judgment signals that, on the undisputed facts, the accused product does not read on at least one required claim element.
Appellate affirmanceZip Top’s patents survive but enforcement window narrowed
Critically, affirmance of non-infringement does not invalidate Zip Top’s patents. US11383890B2 and US11358755B2 remain in force and can be asserted against other parties whose products more closely read on the claims. However, the Federal Circuit’s endorsement of the claim construction applied below will likely define the enforceable scope going forward, potentially narrowing Zip Top’s ability to capture close-design competitors.
Patents remain validSCJ’s Endurables line is cleared — no further appeal available here
S.C. Johnson emerges with a Federal Circuit-level clearance for the Ziploc® Endurables™ product line against these two asserted patents. Having prevailed at both district court and appellate levels, SCJ’s options to challenge Zip Top’s patents via IPR or other routes remain available but are commercially less urgent. Zip Top’s remaining path — en banc petition or certiorari — faces a high bar and is statistically unlikely to succeed.
Full appellate clearanceReusable container IP: claim scope will define competitive risk
For other reusable container manufacturers, the affirmed claim construction provides a publicly visible boundary for what Zip Top’s patents do not cover. Companies whose products are designed closer to the Endurables form factor may benefit from this precedent. However, competitors with structurally different designs remain exposed until Zip Top’s claim scope is more comprehensively litigated. A freedom-to-operate analysis referencing this ruling is now a material step for any new entrant in the flexible-container category.
Strengthened design clearanceFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | ZIP TOP, INC. | Company | Flexible reusable container innovator — holder of US11383890B2 and US11358755B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | S.C. Johnson & Son | Individual | S.C. Johnson & Son — global consumer goods company, maker of Ziploc® Endurables™ silicone containersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian C. Banner | Attorney | Counsel for ZIP TOP, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert William Beard | Attorney | Counsel for ZIP TOP, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Truman Fenton | Attorney | Counsel for ZIP TOP, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC | Law Firm | Representing ZIP TOP, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Dufresne | Attorney | Counsel for S.C. Johnson & SonSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Autumn N. Nero | Attorney | Counsel for S.C. Johnson & SonSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher Graydon Wayne Hanewicz | Attorney | Counsel for S.C. Johnson & SonSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rodger K. Carreyn | Attorney | Counsel for S.C. Johnson & SonSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Tara Lauren Kurtis | Attorney | Counsel for S.C. Johnson & SonSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Perkins Coie LLP | Law Firm | Representing S.C. Johnson & SonSearch 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 — ‘we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to the ‘890 patent’ — is directed specifically at US11383890B2, the primary asserted patent. The court applies a de novo standard of review to both claim construction and summary judgment, meaning the affirmance reflects independent appellate agreement with how the claims were construed and applied. The unambiguous ‘AFFIRMED’ disposition forecloses further review at this court level and leaves SCJ’s Ziploc® Endurables™ line free of liability under the asserted claims.
US11383890B2 — Flexible self-standing reusable container technology
US11383890B2, filed under application number US17/360233, protects innovations in flexible, self-standing container design — a category that includes silicone and fabric-based reusable bags and vessels designed to stand upright without a rigid frame. The companion patent US11358755B2 (application US15/910757) covers related container structural configurations. Both patents sit within a rapidly growing market for sustainable, reusable food storage solutions that are displacing single-use plastics.
Zip Top’s patent portfolio represents a direct competitive threat to major consumer goods companies expanding into premium reusable container lines. SCJ’s Ziploc® Endurables™ sits in exactly this product category, making the claim scope of these patents commercially significant. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of non-infringement will inform how other manufacturers — including private-label and direct-to-consumer brands — assess design freedom in this segment. Any product featuring flexible, self-standing container architecture should be evaluated against the construed claims.
Should you run an FTO against US11383890B2 before launching a reusable container?
Any company developing or commercialising flexible, self-standing reusable containers — particularly silicone or fabric-based food storage vessels — should treat Zip Top’s patent portfolio as a live enforcement risk. The Federal Circuit’s ruling clears the Ziploc® Endurables™ design specifically, but does not create a safe harbour for structurally different products. Patent claims are assessed element-by-element against each individual product, and a design that diverges from Endurables may still read on the asserted claims.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s design parameters against the claim language of US11383890B2 and US11358755B2, factoring in the claim construction adopted by the district court and affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Eureka’s AI-driven analysis surfaces relevant prior art, identifies design-around pathways, and flags co-pending continuation applications in Zip Top’s portfolio that may extend risk beyond the two asserted patents — giving R&D and legal teams a structured, defensible FTO basis before market entry.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11383890B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar reusable container and flexible packaging patent appeals
Federal Circuit appeals involving non-infringement of flexible container and reusable packaging patents — cases with analogous claim construction disputes at the Court of Appeals level.
What this case signals for the reusable container IP landscape
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance confirms SCJ’s design freedom — and reshapes the enforcement calculus for Zip Top and its competitors.
Summary judgment affirmances set durable claim-scope precedent
When the Federal Circuit affirms a non-infringement summary judgment, the claim construction embedded in that ruling becomes authoritative. Competitors and licensees should map their product architectures against the construed claim language — not the raw patent text — to assess true exposure under US11383890B2 and US11358755B2.
Zip Top’s patents remain live enforcement tools against non-Endurables designs
Non-infringement rulings are product-specific. Other flexible container products that differ structurally from the Ziploc® Endurables™ design may still fall within Zip Top’s claims. Market entrants should not treat this ruling as a categorical clearance — a product-specific FTO review remains essential before commercialisation.
ZIP v S.C. — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement in favour of S.C. Johnson with respect to US11383890B2. The court found no reversible error in the lower court’s ruling, meaning SCJ’s Ziploc® Endurables™ products were found not to infringe Zip Top’s asserted patent claims.
Zip Top asserted two patents: US11383890B2 (application US17/360233) and US11358755B2 (application US15/910757). Both cover flexible, self-standing container technology. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance specifically addresses the ‘890 patent; the public order’s scope with respect to the ‘755 patent should be reviewed in the full decision text.
No. Affirmance of non-infringement is entirely separate from a validity determination. US11383890B2 and US11358755B2 remain in force. The ruling means only that SCJ’s Ziploc® Endurables™ products do not infringe the asserted claims — not that the patents lack validity or cannot be enforced against other parties.
Summary judgment of non-infringement is granted when, viewing undisputed facts in the light most favourable to the patent holder, no reasonable jury could find that the accused product satisfies every element of at least one asserted claim. It is a pre-trial ruling that terminates the infringement action without a full trial, and it is reviewed de novo by the Federal Circuit.
Following a Federal Circuit affirmance, a patent holder’s remaining options include petitioning for en banc rehearing before the full Federal Circuit or seeking a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court — both of which face a high bar statistically. Zip Top retains the ability to enforce its patents against other parties whose products may read more closely on the affirmed claim construction.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.