Brice Environmental Servicescorp v. Arcadis US Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Brice Environmental Services Corporation (Alaska)
  • Defendant: Arcadis U.S., Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stoel Rives LLP; Lowe Graham Jones PLLC
• Case Identification: 3:21-cv-00141, D. Alaska, 06/11/2021
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Alaska because the Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s soil-washing system, sold to the U.S. Department of Defense for environmental remediation, infringes a patent related to systems for removing contaminants from soil.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns multi-stage physical separation processes used to decontaminate soil, a key service in the environmental remediation market for government and commercial sites.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a divisional of a prior patent application that ultimately issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,255,514. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing, or post-grant proceedings involving the asserted patent.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-07-01	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,399,141
2008-07-15	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,399,141
2020-05-01	DoD announces Award #ER20-5258 to Defendant Arcadis (approx. date)
2021-06-11	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,399,141 - "System for Removing Contaminants from Soil"

• Issued: July 15, 2008
• Shorthand: ’141 Patent

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of remediating soil contaminated with heavy metals, particularly at military firing ranges where expended bullets create both particulate (e.g., fragments) and leachable (e.g., ionic) lead contamination. (’141 Patent, col. 2:11-39). Existing technologies were described as inadequate for simultaneously reducing both types of contamination to levels that allow the soil to be reused on-site, avoiding costly and unproductive landfill disposal. (’141 Patent, col. 2:47-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that first separates contaminated soil into fractions based on particle size (e.g., using screens) and then further separates those size fractions based on particle density (e.g., using jigs or elutriators). (’141 Patent, col. 4:31-47; Abstract). This process isolates the high-density contaminants (like metal fragments) into a smaller, manageable volume for disposal or recycling, while allowing the bulk of the cleaned soil to be reconstituted and returned to the site. (’141 Patent, col. 4:35-42).
• Technical Importance: The claimed approach provides a method to meet remediation criteria for both total and leachable contaminants, enabling on-site soil reuse rather than off-site disposal. (’141 Patent, col. 2:62-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 20. (Compl. ¶19).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a system for removing contaminants from soil, comprising:
  • A soil diagnostic testing and sampling facility with means for extracting a sample, means for segregating the sample by particle size, means for segregating the size fractions by particle density, and means for testing the density fractions to identify contamination.
  • A contaminated soil removing facility adapted to remove soil fractions corresponding to the contaminated fractions identified by the diagnostic facility, comprising means for extracting soil, means for isolating contaminated soil fractions, means for processing the isolated fractions to remove contaminants, means for treating the processed soil with a stabilization reagent, and means for returning treated soil to the site.
• Independent Claim 20 recites a system for removing contaminants from soil, comprising:
  • A soil diagnostic testing and sampling facility with means for extracting a sample and means for segregating the sample by particle size.
  • Means for segregating the size fractions into a plurality of density fractions, including a first fraction (vegetative matter), a second fraction (metal), and a third fraction (intermediate density).
  • Means for testing the density fractions to identify contamination.
  • A contaminated soil removing facility adapted to remove soil fractions corresponding to the identified contaminated fractions.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is a soil-washing system offered for sale and sold by Arcadis to the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) under Award #ER20-5258. (Compl. ¶17, ¶19).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the system is for the "Ex-Situ Soil Washing to Remove PFAS Adsorbed Soils from Source Zones." (Compl. ¶17). It is intended to be demonstrated and validated for treating soils contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) at Eielson Airforce Base in Alaska. (Compl. ¶17). The complaint positions Arcadis as a direct competitor to Brice in the market for environmental services, including soil remediation projects. (Compl. ¶24). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused system "includes all elements of Claim 1 or Claim 20 of the ’141 Patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents" but does not provide an element-by-element mapping of the accused product's features to the claim limitations. (Compl. ¶21). The infringement theory is predicated on Arcadis’s sale of the system to the DoD for use at Eielson Airforce Base in Alaska. (Compl. ¶17, ¶22). Due to the lack of specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim elements, a claim chart cannot be constructed from the complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question will be whether the accused Arcadis system, designed for removing PFAS chemicals, actually performs the physical separation steps recited in the claims. The patent was developed in the context of removing particulate heavy metals. The complaint does not specify how a system for removing adsorbed chemical compounds would necessarily practice the claimed size and density segregation steps.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the claims can be read to cover technologies for removing chemical contaminants (PFAS) in addition to the heavy metal contaminants (e.g., lead bullets) described extensively in the patent’s specification. For Claim 20, this raises the question of whether a PFAS remediation system generates a fraction with a "specific density corresponding to metal" as the claim requires.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "means for segregating each of the size fractions into a plurality of density fractions according to particle density" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its scope is not defined by the words alone, but by the corresponding structures disclosed in the patent's specification that perform the recited function of "segregating... according to particle density." The outcome of the infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the components of the accused Arcadis system are structurally equivalent to the specific apparatuses disclosed in the ’141 Patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide a basis for a broad interpretation. A party might argue that the function should be interpreted broadly, but the scope will be limited by the disclosed structures.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific structures for performing this function, including "elutriators and jiggers" and a "density treatment system 53" described as a "42-inch diameter circular jig." (’141 Patent, col. 7:24-25, col. 10:28-31, col. 12:35-36). Construction of this term may be limited to these specific types of mining-based density separation equipment and their structural equivalents.

The Term: "a second fraction having a specific density corresponding to metal" (Claim 20)

• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused product targets PFAS chemicals, not "metal." The viability of the infringement allegation against the Arcadis system under Claim 20 may depend entirely on whether a fraction it produces can be considered to have a density "corresponding to metal."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "corresponding to metal" simply means a "high density" fraction, without being limited to actual metallic particles. The patent itself segregates materials into low, intermediate, and high density ranges. (’141 Patent, col. 5:15-20).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly frames the problem and solution around removing metal from small arms firing ranges. (’141 Patent, col. 2:11-24, col. 6:30-34). The specification describes the high-density fraction as including "particulate metal, iron, lead, copper, zinc, and alloys thereof" and notes that the specific gravity for metals is typically "8 or more." (’141 Patent, col. 5:18-20, col. 12:39-40). This context suggests the term may be construed narrowly to require a fraction containing, or having a density characteristic of, actual metallic components.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges, "on information and belief," that the infringement was willful. (Compl. ¶23). It does not plead any facts indicating pre-suit knowledge of the ’141 Patent by the Defendant, such as a prior notification letter or previous litigation.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

1. A question of technological applicability: Can the claims of the ’141 Patent, which are rooted in the specification’s detailed disclosure of separating particulate heavy metals (e.g., bullet fragments) from soil, be construed to cover an accused system designed to remove adsorbed chemical contaminants (PFAS)? The resolution will likely depend on the construction of key terms like "corresponding to metal."
2. An evidentiary question of operational function: As the case proceeds, a key issue will be what evidence Plaintiff can develop to demonstrate that the accused Arcadis PFAS remediation system actually performs the specific multi-stage, size-and-density-based segregation process required by each element of the asserted claims. The complaint’s conclusory allegations will need to be substantiated with specific facts about the accused system’s operation.