Last updated: April 25, 2026
Litigation Summary and Patent Analysis: Graham Packaging Company, L.P. v. Ring Container Technologies, LLC (3:23-cv-00110)
What is the case and where does it sit procedurally?
The matter is filed as Graham Packaging Company, L.P. v. Ring Container Technologies, LLC, docket 3:23-cv-00110 in federal court. The case caption indicates a dispute between Graham Packaging (plaintiff) and Ring Container Technologies (defendant). The filing date is in 2023 (case number format: “3:23-cv-00110”).
Core issue framing: Without pulling the full docket record and asserted patent list, the litigation’s specific claim charts, asserted patent numbers, and current procedural posture (e.g., motion to dismiss, claim construction order, summary judgment, trial) cannot be stated accurately from the information provided.
What is the patent-technology dispute likely focused on?
For this action to support a litigation-grade patent analysis, the following facts must be known:
- the asserted patents (US/WO, publication and/or patent numbers)
- the claim(s) at issue and asserted infringement theories
- the accused products or manufacturing systems tied to the pleadings
- the defenses raised (non-infringement, invalidity, inequitable conduct, exhaustion, license, etc.)
None of those specifics are available in the prompt. Because a patent analysis depends on claim language and the asserted references, providing a detailed technology narrative without the asserted patent set would not meet an evidence standard.
What do we know about the litigation posture from public identifiers alone?
From the docket number alone, the only reliable procedural facts are:
- It is a federal civil case with case number 3:23-cv-00110.
- The parties are Graham Packaging Company, L.P. and Ring Container Technologies, LLC.
A litigation summary that includes orders, deadlines, or dispositive rulings requires access to docket entries, filings, or court orders. Those are not provided.
Why a complete infringement and validity analysis cannot be produced from this prompt
A Bloomberg-style litigation analysis for a patent case typically includes:
- Asserted claim set: independent and dependent claim mapping to the alleged accused features
- Court constructions: claim terms construed in Markman or proposed constructions contested
- Infringement: element-by-element comparisons to accused packaging systems
- Invalidity: a reference chart against each asserted claim limitation
- Procedural events: motions (transfer, dismiss, amend, summary judgment), expert schedules, trial dates
The prompt contains none of the claim language, no asserted patent identifiers, and no docket events. Under strict completeness rules, a complete and accurate litigation analysis cannot be produced.
Key Case Data Table (only what can be stated from the provided identifier)
| Field |
Value |
| Case name |
Graham Packaging Company, L.P. v. Ring Container Technologies, LLC |
| Docket number |
3:23-cv-00110 |
| Jurisdiction |
Federal (district court) |
| Parties |
Graham Packaging Company, L.P. (plaintiff); Ring Container Technologies, LLC (defendant) |
| Year |
2023 (in docket number) |
Key Takeaways
- The case is identified as Graham Packaging Company, L.P. v. Ring Container Technologies, LLC, docket 3:23-cv-00110 (federal).
- A patent litigation summary and analysis requires asserted patents, claims, accused products, and docket events; those are not present in the provided information.
- Any attempt to describe infringement elements, validity arguments, or procedural rulings without the pleadings and orders would be non-evidentiary.
FAQs
1) What patents are asserted in Graham Packaging v. Ring?
Not provided in the prompt.
2) What court and district covers docket 3:23-cv-00110?
Not provided in the prompt.
3) Has the court issued any claim construction or summary judgment decisions?
Not provided in the prompt.
4) What products did the complaint accuse?
Not provided in the prompt.
5) What are the main defenses pleaded (invalidity, non-infringement, licensing)?
Not provided in the prompt.
References
[1] Case caption identifier: Graham Packaging Company, L.P. v. Ring Container Technologies, LLC, docket 3:23-cv-00110 (2023).
