STARBUCKS CORPORATION et al. v. Pi Design AG

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01178, involved a dispute between prominent beverage retailer Starbucks Corporation and design firm Pi Design AG, with Pacific Marketing International LLC joining Starbucks as a petitioner. The case, filed on August 5, 2025, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), concluded in a settlement. This IPR was likely initiated as a defensive measure by Starbucks and Pacific Marketing International LLC in response to an underlying patent infringement lawsuit filed by Pi-Design AG and Bodum USA, Inc. against Starbucks in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:2024cv05319), filed on June 25, 2024.

The petitioners, STARBUCKS CORPORATION, are a globally recognized American multinational chain of coffeehouses and roastery reserves. ANDPACIFIC MARKETING INTERNATIONAL LLC (PMI) is a company that develops, designs, manufactures, and markets beverage and specialty gift housewares, suggesting their products may overlap with the patent at issue. The patent owner, Pi Design AG, is a Swiss company specializing in the design and development of household items and other products, holding numerous patents related to coffee makers, drinking vessels, and other kitchen appliances. Pi Design AG is notably associated with the Bodum brand, with Jorgen Bodum frequently listed as an inventor on patents assigned to Pi Design AG, indicating they are an active design and intellectual property holding entity rather than a typical non-practicing entity (NPE).

The specific patent at issue in this IPR was U.S. Patent No. 8,695,486. While a detailed technical sketch for this exact patent was not explicitly found in general searches, Pi Design AG's patent portfolio heavily features designs and utility patents related to double-walled drinking vessels and coffee-making equipment. For example, numerous design patents assigned to Pi Design AG, with Jorgen Bodum as inventor, are for "Drinking glass" (e.g., USD519785S1) and "Double wall drinking glass" (e.g., USD563172S1), suggesting the '486 patent likely pertains to features of insulated beverage containers or methods of their manufacture. The procedural posture of challenging the patent's validity at the PTAB is a common strategy in patent litigation, offering a potentially faster and more cost-effective avenue to invalidate patents compared to district court proceedings. The settlement of the IPR indicates that the parties reached an agreement to resolve their dispute outside of a full trial at the PTAB.

This case is notable as it highlights ongoing intellectual property disputes in the highly competitive consumer beverage and housewares market. The involvement of Starbucks, a major operating company, as an IPR petitioner against a design and IP holding company like Pi Design AG, which actively protects its innovations in household goods, underscores the importance of patent validity challenges in managing litigation risk. The settlement avoids a potentially lengthy and costly validity determination, suggesting a mutually agreeable resolution for both the prominent retailer and the design-focused patent holder.

The Inter Partes Review (IPR) IPR2025-01178, filed by Starbucks Corporation and Pacific Marketing International LLC against Pi Design AG, concluded in a settlement. This IPR was a parallel proceeding to an underlying patent infringement lawsuit filed by Pi Design AG and Bodum USA, Inc. against Starbucks in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:2024cv05319.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcomes:

District Court Litigation (Pi Design AG et al. v. Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 1:2024cv05319)

• 2024-06-25: Complaint Filing. Bodum USA, Inc. and Pi Design AG filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Starbucks Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
• 2024-07-02: Waiver of Service Returned. Starbucks Corporation's waiver of service was returned executed, with an answer due by September 24, 2024.
• 2024-08-22: Joint Initial Status Report. Bodum USA, Inc. and Pi Design AG filed a Joint Initial Status Report.
• 2024-08-22: Motion for Extension of Time. Starbucks Corporation filed a motion for an extension of time to file its answer to the complaint.
• 2024-08-29: Initial Status Hearing. A telephonic initial status hearing was set before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood.

PTAB IPR Proceeding (STARBUCKS CORPORATION et al. v. Pi Design AG, IPR2025-01178)

• 2025-08-05: IPR Filing. Starbucks Corporation and Pacific Marketing International LLC filed the Inter Partes Review petition, IPR2025-01178, challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,695,486.
• Settlement: The IPR proceeding ultimately concluded in a settlement, indicating the parties reached an agreement to resolve their dispute outside of a full trial at the PTAB.

The following attorneys and firms are identified as representing the plaintiffs, STARBUCKS CORPORATION and PACIFIC MARKETING INTERNATIONAL LLC, in either the IPR proceeding (IPR2025-01178) or the related district court litigation (1:2024cv05319). It is common for companies to use a combination of in-house and external counsel for intellectual property matters.

For STARBUCKS CORPORATION:

• Batur Oktay
  • Role: Partner (previously Global Head of IP at Starbucks)
  • Firm: Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seattle, WA
  • Note: Prior to joining Davis Wright Tremaine in January 2025, Okt spent nearly two decades at Starbucks, where he oversaw the company's global intellectual property program, including launching its patent program.
• Signe Naeve
  • Role: Director, Corporate Counsel for IP (in-house)
  • Firm: Starbucks Corporation, Seattle, WA
  • Note: Responsible for prosecution and enforcement of trademarks and copyrights in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean.
• Brad Lerman
  • Role: General Counsel and Executive Vice President (in-house)
  • Firm: Starbucks Corporation, Seattle, WA
  • Note: Appointed in April 2023, Lerman has over three decades of legal and regulatory experience, including previous roles as GC for Fannie Mae and chief litigation counsel at Pfizer, and as a partner at Winston & Strawn and Kirkland & Ellis.
• Lisa S. Blatt
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC
  • Note: Williams & Connolly LLP has a strong patent litigation practice and handles numerous IPR proceedings, often concurrently with district court litigation.

For PACIFIC MARKETING INTERNATIONAL LLC:

While specific counsel for Pacific Marketing International LLC in IPR2025-01178 or 1:2024cv05319 were not explicitly identified in the search results, it's common for co-petitioners in an IPR to be represented by the same counsel or by firms with experience in inter partes review proceedings. Pacific Marketing International LLC is known to hold various patents related to beverage containers.

General Patent Litigation Firms Used by Starbucks (historically or in other cases):

It is important to note that Starbucks, being a large corporation, engages various law firms for its litigation needs, and the specific firm for this IPR may not be listed in general news searches. However, the following firms have been associated with Starbucks or intellectual property litigation that Starbucks has been involved in:

• Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton (Local Seattle counsel in a 2025 patent declaratory judgment action against Key Patent Innovations).
• Baker Botts (Out-of-state counsel in a 2025 patent declaratory judgment action against Key Patent Innovations).
• Preston Gates & Ellis LLP (Counsel in older SEC filings).

General PTAB and Patent Litigation Expertise:

Firms with strong PTAB and patent litigation experience are often engaged in IPR proceedings. Some examples of firms recognized for this expertise include:

• Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP: Known for patent litigation, including IPRs and PGRs before the PTAB.
• Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP: Recognized as a preeminent law firm for patent litigation, with significant experience in IPRs.
• Morrison Foerster: A patent litigation powerhouse representing clients in complex patent disputes, regularly appearing before the PTAB.
• Latham & Watkins LLP: Brings extensive trial experience and technical prowess to complex patent disputes.
• Blank Rome LLP: Has a large IP practice and handles numerous infringement suits and IPRs.

The following counsel are identified as representing the defendant, Pi Design AG, in the patent infringement lawsuit Pi Design AG et al. v. Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 1:2024cv05319. While the IPR proceeding (IPR2025-01178) concluded in a settlement, these attorneys were involved in the related district court litigation where Pi Design AG was a plaintiff.

For Pi Design AG and Bodum USA, Inc. (Plaintiffs in district court litigation):

• Jonathan W. Thomas
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, NY (as of June 2025). Prior to that, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP.
  • Note: Represents clients in complex intellectual property litigations, transactions, due diligence, and advisory matters, including trademark, trade secret, advertising, and copyright disputes. He has been recognized as a "Rising Star" by Super Lawyers for Intellectual Property from 2018-2025.
• Daniel H. Sherr
  • Role: Patent Attorney
  • Firm: AJU IPG (formerly associated with Clark & Brody in Washington, DC).
  • Note: Possesses decades of experience in all aspects of intellectual property law, including patent prosecution, trademark prosecution, copyright registrations, licensing, and litigation. He began his career as a Patent Examiner at the USPTO. Note: There appears to be another Daniel H. Scherr, with a different firm and practice areas (litigation, negligence, insurance) in Columbia, MD. The Daniel H. Sherr focused on patent law is the relevant attorney here.
• James Griffith
  • Role: Counsel (appears to have filed documents on behalf of Bodum USA, Inc. and Pi-Design AG in the district court case).
  • Firm: Not explicitly stated for this case, but typically local counsel is involved in district court proceedings.
• Fay Sharpe LLP / Lippes Mathias LLP
  • Role: Intellectual Property Law Firm
  • Firm: Lippes Mathias LLP, Cleveland, OH (following a combination with Fay Sharpe LLP in January 2023).
  • Note: Fay Sharpe LLP, now part of Lippes Mathias LLP, is a renowned intellectual property firm with a long history (founded 1884) and expertise in patents, trademarks, and copyrights across various technical fields. While specific attorneys from this firm were not explicitly named in the retrieved docket for the Starbucks case, they are a strong IP firm often associated with patent owners.
• Clark & Brody
  • Role: Intellectual Property Law Firm
  • Firm: Clark & Brody, Washington, DC.
  • Note: A highly rated intellectual property firm experienced in patent prosecution, licensing, and litigation. Conrad J. Clark is a lawyer associated with Clark & Brody.
• Scharf Banks Marmor LLC
  • Role: Intellectual Property Litigation Firm
  • Firm: Scharf Banks Marmor LLC, Chicago, IL.
  • Note: A women-owned law firm with attorneys experienced in complex litigation, including intellectual property disputes, often involving scientific or technical issues. They have litigated and tried a wide variety of sophisticated intellectual property and advertising disputes.