MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Rexam Beauty & Closures, Inc., No. 12-1518 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseRexam, Valois, and MWV compete in the perfume packaging industry. Each sells spray pumps to fragrance houses such as Estee Lauder and Chanel. MWV developed an “invisible” tube that appears to disappear when immersed in liquid, enhancing the aesthetic appearance of the perfume bottle. The inventors needed a transparent material with a refractive index close to that of the perfume liquid. In 2003, Daikin, a plastics supplier, began promoting the fluoropolymer EFEP, a highly transparent fluoropolymer with a refractive index in the correct range. The inventors experimented with EFEP, but the original tubes were hazy and brittle. They tried different production techniques, including a quenching process and eventually developed the NoC® tube. In 2005, they filed patent applications and MWV began marketing the tube. Rexam obtained and analyzed a sample, obtained EFEP, and launched its invisible tube. The district court entered summary judgment of nonobviousness; denied summary judgment of indefiniteness; denied of Rexam’s motion to exclude expert testimony; and found, after trial, infringement of certain MWV patent claims. The Federal Circuit vacated the judgment of nonobviousness, but affirmed the claim constructions, denial of the motion to exclude, and findings of infringement. Rexam and Valois waived their indefiniteness arguments by failing to pursue them at trial.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.