United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC., CARNAUDMETALBOX ENGINEERING LTD., Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

BELVAC PRODUCTION MACHINERY, INC., Defendant-Cross-Appellant ______________________

2022-2299, 2022-2300 ______________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia in No. 6:18-cv-00070-NKM- RSB, Senior Judge Norman K. Moon. ______________________

Decided: December 10, 2024 ______________________

DANIEL J. GOETTLE, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Philadelphia, PA, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by STEPHANIE M. HATZIKYRIAKOU, JEFFREY LESOVITZ.

DAVID EVAN FINKELSON, McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond, VA, argued for defendant-cross-appellant. Also represented by BRIAN CHARLES RIOPELLE, BRIAN DAVID SCHMALZBACH. ______________________ Case: 22-2299 Document: 64 Page: 2 Filed: 12/10/2024

2 CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. BELVAC PRODUCTION MACHINERY, INC.

Before DYK, HUGHES, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges. DYK, Circuit Judge. Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. and related English corporation CarnaudMetalbox Engineering Ltd. (collectively, “Crown”) brought suit against Belvac Production Machinery, Inc. (“Belvac”) for infringement of various claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,308,570 (“the ’570 patent”), 9,968,982 (“the ’982 patent”), and 10,751,784 (“the ’784 patent”) (collectively, “the asserted patents”) relating to necking machines. Belvac raised the affirmative defense of invalidity under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), asserting that a necking machine embodying the invention claimed in the asserted claims was on sale by Crown in this country before the critical date of the patents. Both parties sought summary judgment on this issue. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted summary judgment to Crown that the three patents were not invalid under the on-sale bar and denied summary judgment to Belvac. After a jury trial, the district court entered a judgment in accordance with the jury verdict that the asserted claims of the patents were not invalid and not infringed. Crown appealed the judgment of noninfringement, and Belvac appealed the judgment of no invalidity. Because the undisputed record shows that the asserted claims of the three patents were the subject of an invalidating offer for sale in the United States, we reverse and remand for a final judgment of invalidity. We do not reach the issue of infringement. BACKGROUND I During the manufacture of metal beverage cans, it is common to reduce the diameter of the top of the can body through a process called “necking.” The asserted patents Case: 22-2299 Document: 64 Page: 3 Filed: 12/10/2024

CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. 3 BELVAC PRODUCTION MACHINERY, INC.

concern horizontal, multi-stage necking machines for necking cans at high speed and recite device claims on necking machines and assemblies. The earliest priority date of the three patents is April 24, 2008. The key question in this appeal is whether Crown, before the April 24, 2007, critical date of the asserted patents, made a commercial offer for sale in this country within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Crown, the owner of the asserted patents, makes and sells the CMB3400 necking machine. Before the critical date of the asserted patents, Crown sent a letter dated November 14, 2006, to a third party, Complete Packaging Machinery (“Complete”), that provided a “quotation” regarding Crown’s C