IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Coca-Cola Freestyle dispenser did not infringe beverage dispenser patent, (Oct 21, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

A district court did not err in claim construction by finding that certain steps must be performed in a given order because it was impossible as a matter of logic and grammar for them to be performed in any other order.

Coca-Cola was entitled to summary judgment of non-infringement relating to its Freestyle beverage dispensers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The district court’s construction of a beverage dispenser patent claim finding that certain steps must be performed in a given order, which necessitated a non-infringement finding, was not erroneous because it was the only logical and grammatically correct interpretation of the claim language (Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC v. Coca-Cola Company, No. 2024-1253, (Fed. Cir. Oct. 21, 2025)).

Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC (Rothschild) was the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,417,377 (the ’377 patent), which claimed a beverage dispenser which allowed users to customize and save beverage preferences over the internet. Rothschild brought suit for infringement against the Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola), alleging that Coca-Cola’s Freestyle dispenser infringed claim 11 of the ’377 patent. The trial court granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Coca-Cola. Rothschild appealed.

Claim construction. Rothschild argued that the trial court erred by interpreting the relevant claim as requiring certain steps be performed in a particular order, that is: (1) “transmit the identity of the user and the identifier of the beverage to a server over a network”; (2) “receive user generated beverage product preferences based on the identity of the user and the identifier of the beverage from the server”; and (3) “communicat[e] the user generated beverage product preferences to controller.”

It was undisputed that if the claim required that these steps be performed in this order, then the accused product did not literally infringe. The court noted that a particular order is not typically required unless the claims explicitly recite it, but in this case, as a simple matter of logic and grammar, the steps must be performed in the indicated order. It was impossible to “receive” items under step two before they were “transmit[ted] under step one, and impossible to “communicate” the items in step three before they were “receive[d]” in step two.

The court affirmed the summary judgment of non-infringement.

The Case is No. 24-1253.

Judge: Prost, S.

Attorneys: John C. Carey (Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya, LLP) for Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC. Paul Whitfield Hughes, III (McDermott Will & Schulte LLP) for Coca-Cola Co.

Companies: Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC; Coca-Cola Co.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews GeorgiaNews