On February 20, 2013, Lamina Packaging Innovations LLC of Longview, Texas (“Lamina”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that the following entities (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain products having laminated packaging, laminated packaging and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,207,242 (the ‘242 patent) and 7,348,067 (the ‘067 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):

  • Remy Cointreau USA, Inc. of New York, New York
  • Pernod Ricard USA LLC of New York, New York
  • John Jameson Import Company of Purchase, New York
  • Moet Hennessy USA of New York, New York
  • Champagne Louis Roederer of Reims, France
  • Maisons Marques & Domaines USA Inc. of Oakland, California
  • Freixenet USA of Sonoma, California
  • L’Oreal USA, Inc. of New York, New York
  • Hasbro, Inc. of Pawtucket, Rhode Island
  • Cognac Ferrand USA, Inc. of New York, New York
  • WJ Deutsch & Sons of White Plains, New York
  • Diageo North America, Inc. of Norwalk, Connecticut
  • Sidney Frank Importing Co., Inc. of Rochelle, New York
  • Beats Electronics LLC of Santa Monica, California
  • Camus Wines & Spirits Group of Cognac, France

According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to paper laminates such as boxes and folding containers that are comprised of unbleached and bleached layers, and which provide for packaging that has a high stiffness and strength but is also more environmentally friendly.  In particular, the ‘242 patent relates to a laminated composite sheet glued in the shape of a box and having a fiberboard base layer, an inner ply of cellulose fibers on the inner surface of the base layer, an outer layer with printed graphics, and an adhesive layer between the base layer and the outer layer.  The ‘067 patent relates to a laminate composite sheet having a two-ply base layer with certain specified properties and an additional layer attached to the top ply of the base layer also having certain specified properties. 

As to the allegedly infringing products, the complaint identifies specific products from each of the Proposed Respondent, ranging from popular alcohol products to toys and headphones. 

Regarding domestic industry, Lamina states that its licensees have made substantial investments in the United States in the exploitation of the inventions claimed in the asserted patents with respect to engineering, research, development, testing, marketing, and servicing activities.  According to the complaint, these licensees produce, market, and sell in the U.S., among other things, luxury home goods, fragrances, cosmetics, and wine products.  Lamina also states that it has made substantial investments with respect to these and other licensing activities and that it is also in the process of arranging for a manufacturing partnership relating to products that practice the asserted patents. 

As to related litigation, Lamina states that in June and July of 2012 it asserted the ‘242 patent in four separate litigations against Sara Happ, Inc. (Lamina Packaging Innovations LLC. v. Sara Happ, Inc., No. 2:2012-cv-00310, M.D. Fla.); Francis Ford Coppola Presents, LLC (Lamina Packaging Innovations LLC. v. Francis Ford Coppola Presents, LLC et al., No. 2:12-cv-00311-UA-SPC, M.D. Fla.); Monsieur Touton Selection, Ltd. (Lamina Packaging Innovations LLC. v. Monsieur Touton Selection, Ltd., No. 1:12-cv-05039-PAE, S.D.N.Y.); and Lafco Enterprises Inc. (Lamina Packaging Innovations LLC. v. Lafco Enterprises Inc., No. 1:2012-cv-05225, S.D.N.Y).  The case against Monseiur Touton Selection, Ltd. remains pending.  All other cases have been terminated by settlement. 

With respect to potential remedy, Lamina requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed to the Proposed Respondents.