DCT

3:24-cv-08145

Midwest Energy Emissions Corp v. Tucson Electric Power Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:24-cv-08145, D. Ariz., 07/17/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Arizona because certain defendants reside in the district and because all defendants are alleged to have committed acts of infringement at coal-fired power plants within the district, such as the Springerville and Coronado Generating Stations, where they maintain a regular and established place of business.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ operation of coal-fired power plants infringes five patents related to methods for removing mercury from combustion flue gas by using bromine-based additives and sorbents.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the removal of mercury, a toxic pollutant, from the emissions of coal-fired power plants, a process mandated by federal and state environmental regulations such as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in a prior case filed in Delaware, a jury found on March 1, 2024, that two of the patents-in-suit ('114 and '517) were willfully infringed via contributory and induced infringement by a group of refined coal entities. The complaint also alleges that Plaintiff contacted Defendants TEP and SRP in November 2021 to negotiate a potential license.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-08-30 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2016-01-01 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) compliance deadline
2019-07-09 U.S. Patent No. 10,343,114 issues
2019-07-01 Plaintiff files "Delaware Case" on related patents
2020-03-17 U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225 issues
2020-03-24 U.S. Patent No. 10,596,517 issues
2020-06-02 U.S. Patent No. 10,668,430 issues
2021-03-03 U.S. Patent No. 10,933,370 issues
2021-11-05 Plaintiff allegedly contacts Defendants TEP and SRP for licensing
2024-03-01 Jury verdict of willful infringement in "Delaware Case"
2024-07-17 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,343,114 - "Sorbents for the Oxidation and Removal of Mercury"

Issued July 9, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes that conventional methods for mercury removal from flue gas, such as injecting fine carbon particles (sorbents), are often only partially successful and require large amounts of sorbent, making the process expensive and creating challenges for solid waste disposal (US10343114B2, col. 2:3-19).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method using a "halogen/halide-promoted sorbent" to improve mercury capture (US 10,343,114 B2, Abstract). The process involves introducing a halogen or halide promoter (such as a bromide compound) into the combustion system, which facilitates the oxidation of elemental mercury into a form that can be more easily captured. A sorbent, such as activated carbon, is then injected downstream to adsorb the oxidized mercury from the flue gas for subsequent removal (US 10,343,114 B2, col. 4:5-21).
  • Technical Importance: This two-part approach of oxidation-promotion followed by sorbent capture was designed to increase the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of mercury removal, enabling power plants to better comply with environmental regulations (Compl. ¶¶27, 29).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least one of claims 1-30, with a focus on independent claim 25 (Compl. ¶¶100, 102).
  • Essential elements of Claim 25:
    • A method of separating mercury from a mercury-containing gas.
    • Combusting coal in a combustion chamber to provide the gas, where a bromine-containing additive (Br2, HBr, or a bromide compound) is either added to the coal upstream of the chamber or is present in the chamber itself.
    • Injecting a sorbent material comprising activated carbon into the gas downstream of the combustion chamber.
    • Contacting the mercury in the gas with the sorbent to form a mercury/sorbent composition.
    • Separating the mercury/sorbent composition from the gas to form a cleaned gas.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶100).

U.S. Patent No. 10,596,517 - "Sorbents for the Oxidation and Removal of Mercury"

Issued March 24, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’114 Patent, the background of the '517 patent identifies the high cost and relative ineffectiveness of existing carbon injection systems for mercury capture, which can contaminate the collected ash and create disposal issues (US10596517B2, col. 2:12-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for reducing mercury where coal is combusted with a bromine-based additive to form a mercury-containing gas. The mercury is then collected from this gas using a sorbent, such as activated carbon, that is added to the gas stream (US 10,596,517 B2, Abstract). The core concept involves pre-treating the fuel with a halogen additive to make the mercury more susceptible to capture by a downstream sorbent (US 10,596,517 B2, col. 29:50-59).
  • Technical Importance: This method provides a specific sequence for introducing a halogen additive and a sorbent to improve mercury capture efficiency in coal-fired power plants (Compl. ¶¶27, 29).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least one of claims 1-30, with a focus on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶116, 118).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1:
    • A method for reducing mercury in a mercury-containing gas.
    • Combusting coal in a combustion chamber, where the coal itself comprises an additive (Br2, HBr, or a bromide compound), to form the mercury-containing gas.
    • Collecting mercury in the gas with a sorbent comprising activated carbon that is added to the gas.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶116).

U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225 - "Sorbents for the Oxidation and Removal of Mercury"

Issued March 17, 2020

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for treating mercury-containing gas by combusting a mixture that includes not only coal and a bromide additive but also "pyrolysis char" (US10589225B2, col. 23:66-67). This mixture is combusted to form the mercury-containing gas, into which a particulate sorbent like activated carbon is subsequently added for mercury capture.
  • Asserted Claims: At least one of claims 1-29, with claim 1 identified as exemplary (Compl. ¶¶130, 132).
  • Accused Features: Defendants are accused of practicing this method by combusting coal, pyrolysis char, and an additive (HBr, bromide compound) and then adding activated carbon sorbent to the resulting gas stream (Compl. ¶¶133-134).

U.S. Patent No. 10,668,430 - "Sorbents for the Oxidation and Removal of Mercury"

Issued June 2, 2020

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent specifies a method where the bromine-based additive is added to the coal before the coal enters the combustion chamber, or where the additive is separately introduced into the combustion chamber (US10668430B2, col. 35:48-54). A sorbent comprising activated carbon is then injected downstream to capture the mercury.
  • Asserted Claims: At least one of claims 1-29, with claim 1 identified as exemplary (Compl. ¶¶144, 146).
  • Accused Features: Defendants are accused of performing the claimed method by combusting coal that includes a bromine-based additive and injecting activated carbon downstream (Compl. ¶¶147-148).

U.S. Patent No. 10,933,370 - "Sorbents for the Oxidation and Removal of Mercury"

Issued March 3, 2021

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of separating mercury that introduces a specific quantitative limitation: the weight ratio of the halide/halogen additive to the amount of activated carbon sorbent must be from about 1:100 to about 30:100 (US10933370B2, col. 35:54-61). The method involves combusting a mixture of coal and the additive, followed by adding the sorbent into the gas.
  • Asserted Claims: At least one of claims 1-29, with claim 1 identified as exemplary (Compl. ¶¶160, 162).
  • Accused Features: Defendants are accused of performing this method by combusting coal with an additive and adding a particulate sorbent in a manner that satisfies the claimed weight ratio (Compl. ¶¶163-164).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the mercury removal processes employed at coal-fired power plants owned or operated by the Defendants, specifically including the Springerville Generating Station and the Coronado Generating Station ("Accused Coal Plants") (Compl. ¶65).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Accused Coal Plants perform a multi-step process to comply with federal and state mercury regulations (Compl. ¶102). This process allegedly involves: (1) combusting coal that has been treated with, or in the presence of, a bromine or bromide compound to generate a mercury-containing flue gas (Compl. ¶¶57, 62); (2) injecting a sorbent material comprising activated carbon into the flue gas downstream of the combustion chamber (Compl. ¶¶58, 63); and (3) using particulate collection devices, such as baghouses or electrostatic precipitators, to capture the sorbent material with the bound mercury from the gas stream (Compl. ¶¶59, 64). These facilities are commercial power plants providing electricity to consumers. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'114 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 25) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of separating mercury from a mercury-containing gas The Accused Coal Plants are alleged to perform this method to comply with mercury regulations (Compl. ¶102). ¶102 col. 33:50-51
combusting coal in a combustion chamber to provide the mercury-containing gas, wherein the coal comprises added Br2, HBr, a bromide compound, or a combination thereof, added to the coal upstream of the combustion chamber, or the combustion chamber comprises added Br2, HBr, a bromide compound... The Accused Coal Plants allegedly burn coal with an added bromine/bromide compound, or add such compounds directly to the combustion chamber (Compl. ¶103). ¶103 col. 33:52-62
injecting a sorbent material comprising activated carbon into the mercury containing gas downstream of the combustion chamber The Accused Coal Plants allegedly inject activated carbon sorbent downstream of the combustion chamber (Compl. ¶104). ¶104 col. 33:63-66
contacting mercury in the mercury-containing gas with the sorbent, to form a mercury/sorbent composition This is alleged to occur when mercury in the gas exiting the combustion chamber physically contacts the injected sorbent within the same gas stream (Compl. ¶105). ¶105 col. 33:67-col. 34:2
separating the mercury/sorbent composition from the mercury-containing gas, to form a cleaned gas The Accused Coal Plants allegedly use equipment like baghouses or electrostatic precipitators to collect the sorbent with captured mercury (Compl. ¶106). ¶106 col. 34:3-6

'517 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method for reducing mercury in a mercury-containing gas The Accused Coal Plants are alleged to perform this method to comply with mercury regulations (Compl. ¶118). ¶118 col. 29:50-51
combusting coal in a combustion chamber, the coal comprising an additive comprising Br2, HBr, a bromide compound, or a combination thereof... The Accused Coal Plants allegedly combust coal that includes an additive comprising Br2, HBr, or a bromide compound (Compl. ¶119). ¶119 col. 29:52-55
collecting mercury in the mercury-containing gas with a sorbent added to the mercury-containing gas, the sorbent comprising activated carbon The Accused Coal Plants allegedly add a sorbent containing activated carbon to the gas and then collect it using baghouses or ESPs (Compl. ¶120). ¶120 col. 29:56-59

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The infringement theories rely on the specific chemical nature of the additives used by Defendants. A central question may be whether the materials Defendants add to their coal or combustion chambers fall within the scope of the claimed terms "additive comprising Br2, HBr, a bromide compound, or a combination thereof." The defense may argue that their additives are chemically distinct or are not "added" in the manner required by the claims.
  • Technical Questions: A factual dispute may arise regarding the precise sequence and location of the alleged infringing acts. For example, for the ’430 Patent, which requires the additive be added to the coal "before the coal enters the combustion chamber," evidence of where and when the additive is introduced will be critical. For the ’370 Patent, which requires a specific weight ratio of additive-to-sorbent, the case may turn on technical evidence of the quantities of materials used during plant operations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "additive comprising Br2, HBr, a bromide compound, or a combination thereof" (’517 Patent, cl. 1)

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is fundamental to the infringement case for all asserted patents. Infringement depends on whether the chemical agents used by Defendants are encompassed by this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the Defendants could argue that their mercury control agents are different chemical compositions that fall outside the claimed Markush group.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention broadly as using "halogen/halide-promoted" sorbents and discusses the use of various molecular halogens and halides as promoters, suggesting the term is not limited to only the explicitly listed compounds (US 10,596,517 B2, col. 4:30-32).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, such as reacting carbon with molecular bromine or hydrogen bromide (US 10,596,517 B2, col. 15:1-30). A defendant may argue that "bromide compound" should be construed in light of these specific embodiments, potentially narrowing its scope.

The Term: "collecting mercury" (’517 Patent, cl. 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the final capture step of the claimed method. The complaint alleges this is performed by equipment like baghouses and ESPs (Compl. ¶120). The construction will determine what manner of removal satisfies this claim element.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The '517 patent's specification, which shares a specification with the '114 patent, explicitly states that captured sorbent particles can be removed from the gas stream "in a particulate control device such as a baghouse or electrostatic precipitator (ESP)" (US 10,343,114 B2, col. 1:63-66). This provides strong support for a construction that covers standard industrial particulate control equipment.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The defense could posit that "collecting" requires more than passive filtering and implies an active chemical sequestration step, though the specification's language regarding ESPs and baghouses may make this a difficult argument to sustain.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges induced infringement against parent companies (TEP and Tri-State) for allegedly directing their subsidiaries' infringing activities, and against the plant owners for inducing the plant operator (TEP) to infringe (Compl. ¶¶108, 109, 122, 123). The alleged inducing acts include being "aware of the" patents and taking part in "the supply contract process for activated carbon and bromine-containing additives" that lead to infringement (Compl. ¶¶108, 122).

Willful Infringement

  • Willfulness is alleged based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶¶93, 95). Pre-suit knowledge is alleged based on Plaintiff’s status as a known competitor, direct licensing outreach to defendants TEP and SRP in November 2021, and the March 2024 jury verdict in the "Delaware Case" finding infringement of two of the same patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶87-88, 90). The complaint alleges continued infringement despite this knowledge.

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

  • A core issue will be one of chemical scope: do the specific chemical agents used by the Defendants for mercury control at their power plants meet the definition of the "additive comprising Br2, HBr, a bromide compound" as recited in the asserted claims, or can Defendants demonstrate their materials are chemically distinct and thus non-infringing?
  • A second central question will be one of knowledge and intent: given the prior jury verdict on two of the patents-in-suit and the alleged pre-suit licensing discussions, can the Plaintiff establish that Defendants possessed the requisite knowledge and specific intent to encourage infringement to be liable for inducement, and does this history render any infringement willful from before the filing of the lawsuit?
  • Finally, a key evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: what technical evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the Accused Coal Plants consistently operate in a manner that practices every step of the claimed multi-part methods, particularly the quantitative weight-ratio requirements asserted in U.S. Patent No. 10,933,370?