Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CPI Card Group Inc. v. Multi Packaging Solutions, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Colorado

October 23, 2017

CPI CARD GROUP, INC., Plaintiff/Counter Defendant,
v.
MULTI PACKAGING SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant/Counter Claimant.

          ORDER RE: CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

          Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.

         The parties have requested construction of four disputed terms contained in the patent at issue in this case. The parties' briefing is complete, and the Court held a tutorial and heard argument concerning these matters on August 29, 2017. The Court now makes the following findings and conclusions regarding the construction of the patent claims at issue.

         I. Background

         According to the operative pleading, Plaintiff CPI Card Group, Inc. (“CPI”) provides secure packaging products for various retail industries, including prepaid debit cards, which, in turn, include activatable point-of-sale cards. Among CPI's customers is American Express.

         Defendant Multi Packaging Solutions, Inc. (“MPS”) is a direct competitor of CPI and also is a supplier of secure card packaging to, among others, American Express. Like CPI, MPS provides its customers with secure packaging for activatable point-of-sale cards, including for example, the American Express Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Prepaid Card and the Target American Express Gift Card packages (collectively, the “Accused Products”).

         On April 16, 2013, the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued the U.S. Patent No. 8, 419, 889 patent (“the ‘889 Patent”), entitled “Ultrasecure Card Package, ” to CPI as assignee. The '889 Patent is directed to methods for creating a secure package for a point-of-sale card that is designed to deter theft and unaccountable activation of activatable point-of-sale cards. CPI is the owner of all right, title, and interest in the '889 Patent.

         CPI alleges that MPS has infringed, and may continue to infringe, claims of the ‘889 Patent by making, using, importing, offering to sell, and selling its card packaging products. Specifically, CPI contends that MPS used “ZED” machinery to create the same heat-sealing process used by CPI to seal its packaged prepaid debit cards. MPS counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the ‘889 Patent. Two claims of the ‘889 Patent are at issue in this lawsuit:

         Claim One: A method for producing a secure card package containing a point-of-sale activatable card, comprising:

providing a first panel and a second panel each comprising paper stock and having a non-polymeric coated inner surface;
printing a heat-activatable adhesive directly upon the non-polymeric coated inner surface of the first panel;
allowing the heat-activatable adhesive to dry upon the non-polymeric coated inner surface of the first panel;
locating a point-of-sale activatable card between the inner surface of the first panel and an inner surface of the second panel, after the step of allowing the heat-activatable adhesive to dry upon the non-polymeric coated inner surface of the first panel; and,
activating the heat-activatable adhesive, after the locating step, by applying heat and pressure only in a region substantially surrounding and offset from the point-of-sale activatable card to enclose the point-of-sale activatable card in a secure space between the first and second panels.

Claim Eighteen: A method for producing a secure card package containing a point-of-sale activatable card, comprising:

providing a first panel and a second panel each comprising paper stock and each having a clay coated inner surface and a clay coated outer surface;
printing a heat-activatable adhesive comprising polyurethane directly upon the clay coated inner surface of the first panel;
allowing the heat-activatable adhesive to dry upon the clay coated inner surface of the first panel;
locating a point-of-sale activatable card between the inner surface of the first panel and the inner surface of the second panel, after the step of allowing the heat-activatable adhesive to dry upon the coated inner surface of the first panel; and,
activating the heat-activatable adhesive, after the locating step, by applying heat and pressure only in a region substantially surrounding and offset from the point-of-sale activatable card to enclose the point-of-sale activatable card in a secure space between the first and second panels.

Compl. ¶ 16, Ex. A. The bold-faced type identifies the four terms in each claim disputed by the parties.

         On December 8, 2016, the Court issued its Scheduling Order in a Patent Case. ECF No. 33. On January 11, 2017, the parties appeared before the Court for a hearing on CPI's motion for preliminary injunction, then came to an agreement acknowledging that MPS had stopped the accused process and would notify CPS if it ever intended to re-start the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.