## Facts

- Juicy Whip owned U.S. Patent No. 5,575,405 covering a post-mix beverage dispenser that visually imitates a pre-mix dispenser.
- Pre-mix dispensers store the mixed beverage in a visible bowl that can drive impulse purchases but has limited capacity and contamination/cleaning problems.
- Post-mix dispensers keep syrup and water separate and mix them at dispensing, typically without a visible bowl of beverage.
- The patented dispenser uses a transparent display bowl filled with a non-bacterial fluid that simulates the dispensed beverage, while the dispensed beverage is actually mixed immediately before dispensing.
- The claims require that the machine create the visual impression that the display bowl is the source of the dispensed drink, even though the bowl has no fluid connection to the outlet.

## Issues

1. Whether a patented product lacks utility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 when its commercial benefit arises from visually imitating another product and thereby potentially deceiving customers.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed the summary judgment that the patent was invalid for lack of utility and remanded.
- The court held that the invention satisfied § 101 because it provided identifiable benefits, including imitation/simulation that increases product salability and operational advantages from keeping the display liquid separate from the dispensed beverage.
- The court rejected the view that customer deception, by itself, defeats patent utility.

## Legal Principles

- Section 101 utility requires only that an invention be capable of providing some specific, identifiable benefit; the threshold is minimal.
- Increasing salability by making one product imitate another can be a sufficient benefit to satisfy utility.
- Alleged deception or “immoral” purpose is not a categorical bar to patent utility under the Patent Act; concerns about misleading marketing are generally addressed by other bodies of law, not by denying § 101 utility.
- Older decisions denying patents on deception-based rationales were treated as inconsistent with modern § 101 utility analysis.

## Conclusion

A post-mix beverage dispenser that simulates the appearance of a pre-mix display bowl has sufficient utility under § 101 because imitation and related functional advantages are identifiable benefits, and potential customer deception alone does not render the invention nonuseful.


Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc., 185 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999)