Subscribe Now
Innovation May 2008 > Feature
Email To A Friend  Email  |  Printable Version  Print

The next big innovation in ready to drink beverages

By Matt Casey

<< Previous 1 2 




“I think it is a new category,” Milligan said. “It’s not an RTD, it’s an RTG (ready to go.)”

But this new category isn’t without its limitations. The caps store only a couple milliliters of liquid or powder, making them off-limits for companies that want to use bulky natural sweeteners. Carbonation may also present a problem, as it has not been fully explored. And don’t expect to see delivery-cap equipped beverages in the budget section of the cooler case any time soon. IV Science's  standalone caps will retail for somewhere between $0.99 and $1.50 – meaning beverage companies would be hard-pressed to offer a cap plus a bottle of water for less than $1.

However, Milligan said he expected most PowerCap equipped beverages to cost consumers between $1.99 and $2.49 each. That puts them in a similar price range as glaceau’s vitaminwater – owned by Coca-Cola – which is the kind of beverage Milligan believes delivery-cap-equipped drinks will compete against. That market positioning, though, could put Eisner’s Activate and other cap-equipped beverages in direct competition with the Coca-Cola empire. The beverage behemoth has crushed many competitors, and delivery caps will have to provide more than shot-lived novelty to survive. Milligan insists they do, but he and the other companies will have to wait and see if the sales figures bear out their claims.



Which Cap Company is Which?

Entrepreneurs interested in this category will find that they’re looking at three relatively-unknown companies. Here’s a quick who’s who.

Liquid Health Labs produces the PowerCap, which has already reached shelves in California. The company boasts that they offer complete turn-key solutions, but also know how to get out of the way – though there’s one area where they won’t budge. Liquid Health Labs requires that all beverages that use PowerCap include a nod to the cap product on the beverage’s label. Ken Milligan, Liquid Health Labs’ executive vice president, said that will actually help cross-promote geographically-disparate products, but the similar labeling could create marketing conflicts when products’ territories overlap. Milligan said he expects as many as 10 PowerCap equipped products to launch by the end of 2008, with announced products including X2 Sports out of Toronto and IV Science's stand alone caps.

Blast Cap Technologies, run by inventor Michael Anderson, offers a wide array of delivery cap designs – some of which aren’t even caps. Anderson claims to have “hundreds” of different designs available, and the demo videos on his website – blastmax.com – suggest he’s not kidding. Some designs use twists. Some use plungers and some use dual-chambered pouches. However, Blast Cap Technologies does not currently have a product on store shelves. Anderson says he has a project in the works, but can’t say anything about it. “I have a real heavy-duty strict confidentiality (agreement.)” he said, but “I know that when it comes out, everyone’s gonna know about it.”

Liteco is probably the odd-man-out in this suite of early players. The Italy-based company has interests that expand beyond the beverage market and while Marco Saulle, Liteco’s director of marketing, research and design, has more experience with delivery caps than the other players, his efforts have been hampered by a patent lawsuit filed by Michael Anderson. Saulle insists that his patents differ from Anderson’s, and expects to be out from under Anderson’s injunction shortly, but he’s mum about what delivery-cap-projects he might be working on currently. “I don’t have time or money to waste for lawsuits at this time,” he said.

Email To A Friend  Email  |  Printable Version  Print
<< Previous 1 2 
There are currently 1 comments on this article
On 6/18/2008, Marco Saulle said:

In Regards to the Liteco''s injunction mentioned on the hardcopy and PDF file of BEVNET-INNOVATION Liteco''s patents don''t interfere with anybody as the judge communicated on an order dated august 2007. What Happened... The U.S patents office issued three patents on the same invention one to Liteco and two to Anderson. In all three patent filing applications the same exact design is used as a reference to describe the invention. HMMMM?? Liteco''s srl infrastructure has been on the market for over 36 years and since 1998 diversifying in the health industry in R&D product development and commercialization of private label products as proven on many diversified sport industry magazine ads here in Italy. Well Liteco was first to file the patent of the Instantmixercap. FOUR MONTHS later Michael Anderson filed for a Patent on the same Application. Michael Anderson received samples from Liteco right after our filings, thats why the designs on Andersons patent filings are identical. Liteco claims international priority as the international convention rules out. Anderson sued Liteco srl because Anderson could not close deals, because Liteco''s Patent claimed international priority as it still does today. The second point is that all the samples that I''ve sent to everybody all around the world including the ones that I sent to Anderson are exclusively for demo and do not utilize barrier polymers that would give ideal stability properties of the mixercap. We never issued to Anybody the real barrierized Mixercaps. It is very possible that many labs around the world have tested our and Andersons mixercap properties finding that the chamber concept had no efficacy in preserving the ingredients. This is the reason why we haven''t still hit the market. The Good news is that once Again liteco will prove to be one step ahead. As we are currently testing for stability and will have results in the following weeks. In regards to the lawsuit: In August 2007 the judge ordered there was no interference. The plaintiff sued Liteco saying that liteco''s Patent filed first and claiming international priority, interfered on the plaintiff''s Patents whom were filed after. HMMMMM??? After spending over $120.000 in defending in a ridiculous and frivilous lawsuit with no case we were forced to retire from defense cause of the expense and because there was no interference. Anderson asked for a default judgement and got the judge of the Federal Court of Southern District of Florida to give us an injunction limited exclusively to the United States territory where Liteco cannot sell the patent in suit cause it interferes with Andersons which was filed after..HMMMM? The Court never communicated to Liteco the date for hearing nor the order; we have written confession from the court where it was admitted that nobody communicated to us the date to be in court. STRANGE HMMMMMMM? So we are 6000 KM away... We continue to claim international priority and to regain our rights..mean while... we Rule out side of the United States. And since we did all the inventing the injunction is not a problem cause we created other mixercaps that are out of the injunction and so we will continue to promote other types of mixercaps in the United States. I advise everybody not to sign any non-disclosure agreements which could block you from changing cap technology in the future. Don''t put any money upfront and before you do.. get samples and get them tested for humidity and oxygen barrier in an independent laboratory. Don''t be fooled like me. Kind Regards, Marco Saulle Liteco srl - Italy

Leave a Comment
 Name (required)  
 Email (required but will not be published)  
Please note: All comments are reviewed prior to posting. Attempts to advertise, solicit, or promote will not be approved.
 





BevNet Beverage Spectrum Logo