Diesel Green Emissions v. California Air Resources Board

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Bryan Alan Yonan, Diesel Green Emissions an Environmental Corporation (California)
  • Defendant: California Air Resources Board a.k.a. C.A.R.B. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bryan Alan Yonan (pro se)
• Case Identification: 2:17-cv-08706, C.D. Cal., 12/01/2017
• Venue Allegations: The complaint does not contain a specific section on venue, but the dispute involves a California-based plaintiff and a California state governmental agency, with the alleged events occurring in California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, a state regulatory agency, infringed on its "patent pending technology" through its administrative actions in the aftermarket parts exemption and verification process.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to aftermarket devices for reducing harmful emissions from diesel engines by using heated glow plugs to treat exhaust gases.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint details a multi-year dispute between the parties, beginning with Plaintiff’s 2012 application to Defendant for an exemption for its "ZE7P" system. The complaint alleges Defendant engaged in a "systematic denial" of Plaintiff's rights, requested a prototype, and ultimately failed to approve the technology, actions which Plaintiff frames as patent infringement. The complaint includes a filing receipt for a provisional patent application filed in 2013 and a non-provisional application filed in 2014; it does not identify an issued patent.

Case Timeline

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

The complaint does not assert an issued patent. Instead, it attaches and appears to base its infringement allegations on U.S. Patent Application No. 14/487,962, which is analyzed below.

U.S. Patent Application No. 14/487,962 - "Diesel Dissipation Dryer"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0075159 A1 (based on Application No. 14/487,962), titled "Diesel Dissipation Dryer," filed September 16, 2014.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The application background states that diesel vehicles expel black particulates that cause pollution and that most existing filtering systems can become clogged, requiring maintenance (Appl. ¶8). It notes that prior art filters often must be replaced or cleaned to maintain engine performance (Appl. ¶11, ¶13, ¶14). The application seeks a system that can be added to existing diesel engines to "remove obliterate all of the particulates from the exhaust" (Appl. ¶15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a "glow Plug Emissions Free Exhaust System device" described as a "diesel dissipation dryer" (Appl. ¶6, ¶15). Wet exhaust from an engine's turbocharger enters an elongated, cylindrical chamber containing a plurality of glow plugs (Appl. ¶6). These glow plugs heat the exhaust to "dissipate all fuel and exhaust emissions that will exit the device" (Appl. ¶6). The system is designed to be retrofitted into a pre-existing exhaust system (Appl. Claim 9). A diagram in the complaint illustrates the "ZE7P" device, showing a chamber with multiple "Heater Plugs" receiving and treating exhaust flow (Compl. p. 7).
• Technical Importance: The application claims the device is a "universal system for diesel engines" intended to "produce zero emissions for clean air" and provide the "world's first Catalytic Glow Plug Emissions free Exhaust System" (Appl. ¶16-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The application contains two independent claims: Claim 1 (apparatus) and Claim 11 (method).
• Claim 1 (Apparatus) Essential Elements:
  • An elongated cylindrical tubular body.
  • The body has a receiving end for wet vapors from an engine exhaust.
  • A plurality of glow plugs extending from the outside to the inside of the body.
  • At least one return tube connected to the body "in front and behind" the glow plugs.
  • At least one sensor that monitors dried exhaust.
• Claim 11 (Method) Essential Elements:
  • Identifying an installation location after a turbocharger in a vehicle's exhaust line.
  • Removing a section of the exhaust pipe.
  • Installing the emissions control dryer in its place.
  • Securing the dryer with clamps.
  • Electrically connecting the dryer to the vehicle's electrical system to power and control the glow plugs.
• The application includes dependent claims specifying features such as the use of seven glow plugs (Claim 4) and a control system (Claim 10).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not accuse a product or service of infringement. It accuses the California Air Resources Board (CARB), a governmental agency, of infringing acts.

Functionality and Market Context

The accused "functionality" is Defendant's regulatory conduct (Compl. ¶¶1-4). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant engaged in a "systematic denial of Claimants' exemption process rights," failed to comply with information requests, and implemented "underground" regulations that prevented Plaintiff's technology from receiving verification or exemption (Compl. pp. 2, 4). The complaint alleges these actions constitute patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Compl. p. 2). The complaint does not allege that CARB made, used, sold, or imported any device.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide specific infringement allegations that map elements of the asserted claims to any accused instrumentality, nor does it contain or reference a claim chart. The infringement theory appears to be based on the allegation that Defendant's regulatory actions, such as denying an "aftermarket parts exemption" for Plaintiff's ZE7P system, constitute infringement of "patent pending technology" (Compl. p. 2). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Jurisdictional Question: Does the complaint state a claim upon which relief can be granted, given that it alleges infringement of a "patent pending technology" rather than an issued patent?
  • Scope Questions: Do the administrative and regulatory actions of a government agency, such as denying an application for an emissions exemption, constitute "making, using, offering to sell, or selling" an invention as required for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)?
  • Factual Questions: Does the complaint provide any factual basis to allege that Defendant has manufactured, operated, or sold a device meeting the limitations of the independent claims of Plaintiff's patent application?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "diesel dissipation dryer" (from the title and claim preamble).
• Context and Importance: This term defines the invention itself. Its construction is central to determining the scope of the apparatus claim, particularly what distinguishes it from conventional diesel particulate filters or other exhaust treatment systems.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The detailed description states the dryer can be added to "nearly any existing diesel engine" and is a "universal system," suggesting broad applicability (Appl. ¶15-16).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the device's core function as using "seven Glow Plugs [to] heat and dissipate all fuel and exhaust emissions" (Appl. ¶6). The abstract describes a process where "a plurality of glow plugs are used to heat the wet exhaust gas to dry the wet exhaust and burn all fuel and particulates" (Appl. ¶51). This focus on direct heating via glow plugs to "dissipate" or "burn" particulates, as opposed to trapping them in a filter medium, may support a narrower construction limited to this specific mechanism.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement.

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

The resolution of this case appears to depend on preliminary legal questions rather than technical claim construction or infringement analysis.

• A core issue will be one of justiciability: has the Plaintiff stated a valid claim for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, given that the complaint is based on a "patent pending" application and not an issued U.S. patent?
• A second fundamental legal question is one of statutory scope: can the alleged regulatory actions of a state agency—specifically, the denial of an exemption for Plaintiff's own product—be construed as an act of making, using, selling, or offering to sell a patented invention as required to establish infringement?