DCT
5:16-cv-01824
EcoServices LLC v. Certified Aviation Services LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: EcoServices, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Certified Aviation Services, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greenberg Traurig, LLP
- Case Identification: 1:16-cv-21454, S.D. Fla., 04/22/2016
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts business and has service centers within the Southern District of Florida, and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the infringement claims occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Cyclean® Engine Wash system and method for cleaning aircraft engines infringe three U.S. patents related to the technology of aircraft compressor washing.
- Technical Context: The patents concern systems and methods for washing aircraft turbine compressors to remove fouling, which can improve engine efficiency, lower fuel consumption, and reduce emissions.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent letters to Defendant on September 13, 2013, and December 5, 2013, providing notice of the ’609 and ’860 patents and offering them for license. Plaintiff claims Defendant did not respond, which forms the basis for allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1995-06-07 | ’860 Patent Priority Date |
| 1999-02-09 | ’860 Patent Issue Date |
| 2006-11-28 | ’609 and ’262 Patents Priority Date |
| 2010-06-18 | Press release names Defendant as U.S. service provider for Cyclean |
| 2012-06-12 | ’609 Patent Issue Date |
| 2013-09-13 | First notice letter regarding ’609 and ’860 patents sent to Defendant |
| 2013-12-05 | Second notice letter regarding ’609 and ’860 patents sent to Defendant |
| 2015-10-20 | ’262 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-04-22 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,162,262 - "Automated Detection and Control System and Method for High Pressure Water Wash Application and Collection Applied to Aero Compressor Washing," issued October 20, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes that manual operation of engine washing systems creates a risk of human error, where incorrect settings for water flow, pressure, or wash time can lead to engine damage or an ineffective cleaning, negating the benefits of the wash (’262 Patent, col. 3:50-62).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an automated system to mitigate human error. A key feature is an "information unit" (e.g., an RFID tag) on the washing equipment (manifold) that identifies the specific engine type. A control unit reads this information and automatically selects and runs a pre-programmed washing procedure with the correct parameters for that engine, ensuring a consistent and safe wash (’262 Patent, col. 4:41-48, col. 6:28-50).
- Technical Importance: The technology aims to introduce automation, data-driven consistency, and quality control to a critical aircraft maintenance process that was previously dependent on operator diligence (’262 Patent, col. 4:36-40).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts direct infringement of at least one claim (Compl. ¶26). The allegations in Count I track the elements of independent claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A system for washing turbine engines comprising:
- a washing unit for providing a washing liquid to the turbine engines;
- an information detector configured to gather information related to engine type; and
- a control unit configured to accept the information from the detector, determine a washing program from a set of preprogrammed programs, and regulate the washing unit accordingly.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, though this is standard practice.
U.S. Patent No. 8,197,609 - "Automated Detection and Control System and Method for High Pressure Water Wash Application and Collection Applied to Aero Compressor Washing," issued June 12, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Building on the problem of manual control, the patent addresses the need to verify cleaning effectiveness and to optimize the washing process by analyzing its results in real-time (’609 Patent, col.4:11-16).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that incorporates a feedback loop. It includes a "collector unit" to capture the used washing liquid and a "device for analyzing" that liquid. A control unit uses the analysis of the effluent (e.g., measuring its "Total Dissolved Solids") to regulate the washing process, potentially adjusting parameters to achieve a better clean (’609 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:8-21).
- Technical Importance: This technology moves beyond pre-programmed automation to an adaptive, feedback-controlled cleaning process that can respond to the actual amount of fouling removed from an engine (’609 Patent, col. 4:26-35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts direct infringement of at least one claim (Compl. ¶31). The allegations in Count II track the elements of independent claim 14.
- Independent Claim 14 requires:
- A system for washing engines and collecting waste liquid comprising:
- a washing unit for providing a washing liquid into an engine;
- a collector unit for collecting used washing liquid from the engine;
- a control unit for regulating the washing unit based on characteristics of the used washing liquid; and
- a device for analyzing the used washing liquid to determine its characteristics (e.g., types of solids).
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 5,868,860 - "Method of Washing Objects, Such As Turbine Compressors," issued February 9, 1999 (Multi-Patent Capsule)
Technology Synopsis
This patent addresses the problem that in conventional engine washes, centrifugal forces cause most of the water to be thrown outwards, resulting in a poor cleaning of the internal compressor blades (’860 Patent, col. 1:24-34). The invention proposes a method using a high-pressure spray with a specific combination of liquid particle size (120-250 µm), velocity (100-126 m/sec), pressure (50-80 bars), and flow rate to ensure the finely-divided liquid droplets follow the same airflow paths as the contaminants they are meant to remove, thereby overcoming the centrifugal effect and cleaning more effectively (’860 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-18).
Asserted Claims
The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one or more claims" (Compl. ¶42); its factual allegations regarding pressure, spray angle, droplet size, and flow rate correspond to the elements of independent claim 1.
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that Defendant's Cyclean system uses a "Lechler Series 632 flat fan nozzle" that permits operation within the specific numerical ranges for pressure, droplet size, flow rate, and liquid particle velocity required by the patent's claims (Compl. ¶¶44-48).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is the "Cyclean® Engine Wash" system and method used by Defendant to clean aircraft engines (Compl. ¶4).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the Cyclean system is used to clean aircraft engines at various airports in Florida and that Defendant is the "sole United States service provider for CYCLEAN™ Engine Washing" (Compl. ¶10). The infringement allegations assert that this system incorporates specific components corresponding to the patent claims, including a washing unit, an information detector, a control unit, a liquid collection unit, and a device for analyzing the used wash liquid (Compl. ¶¶27, 33). It is also alleged to use specific nozzle technology to produce a spray with particular physical properties (Compl. ¶44).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’262 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system for washing turbine engines comprising: a washing unit for providing a washing liquid to the turbine engines; | Defendant’s Cyclean system uses a washing unit for providing a washing liquid. | ¶27 | col. 5:9-14 |
| an information detector configured to gather information related to engine type; and | Defendant’s Cyclean system uses an information detector. | ¶27 | col. 6:28-31 |
| a control unit configured to accept the information related to engine type from the information detector and to determine a washing program... and further configured to regulate the washing unit... | Defendant’s Cyclean system uses a control unit. | ¶27 | col. 6:41-50 |
’609 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system for washing engines and collecting waste liquid... comprising: a washing unit for providing a washing liquid into an engine; | Defendant’s Cyclean system uses a washing unit for providing a washing liquid into an engine. | ¶33 | col. 5:9-14 |
| a collector unit for collecting used washing liquid that emanates from the engine... | Defendant’s Cyclean system uses a collector unit. | ¶33 | col. 8:36-40 |
| a control unit for regulating the washing unit based on characteristics of the used washing liquid emanating from the engine; and | Defendant’s Cyclean system uses ECM data analysis of the washing results to determine the characteristics of the used washing liquid. | ¶34 | col. 8:8-21 |
| a device for analyzing the used washing liquid to determine the characteristics of the used washing liquid including the types of solid(s) included therein... | Defendant’s Cyclean system uses a device for analyzing the used washing liquid. | ¶33-34 | col. 8:8-12 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Questions: For the ’262 Patent, the complaint makes conclusory allegations that the Cyclean system "uses" an "information detector" and "control unit" (Compl. ¶27). A central question will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to show that the accused system actually contains this automated identification and program-selection architecture, as opposed to being a manually controlled system.
- Technical and Scope Questions: For the ’609 Patent, the complaint alleges that "ECM data analysis of the washing results" meets the claim requirement of analyzing "characteristics of the used washing liquid" (Compl. ¶34). This raises a technical question: does Engine Condition Monitoring (ECM) data, which typically reflects engine performance parameters like temperature and speed, constitute an analysis of the liquid itself, as described in the patent’s embodiment of measuring Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)? (’609 Patent, col. 8:10-14). The answer may depend on claim construction and evidence of how the Cyclean system technically operates.
- Factual Questions: For the ’860 Patent, infringement hinges on whether the Cyclean system, as operated by Defendant, actually meets all of the specific numerical ranges for pressure, particle size, velocity, and flow rate recited in the claims (Compl. ¶¶45-48). The allegations are made "upon information and belief" and state the nozzle "would permit" such operation, raising the question of whether this is how the system is actually used in practice.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "information detector configured to gather information related to engine type" (’262 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the automation aspect of the ’262 Patent. The infringement analysis for Claim 1 will depend heavily on whether any component of the Cyclean system can be shown to perform this specific function of automatically identifying the engine to a control system.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term is not limited to a single technology, listing "bar code labels, optical readers for obtaining pertinent information from the bar code, radio frequency equipment" as other suitable information units (’262 Patent, col. 6:49-54).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly highlights a "radio-frequency identification (RFID) chip or tag" as the preferred embodiment for the information unit and an "RFID reader" as the preferred information detector (’262 Patent, col. 6:32-34, col. 8:59-62). A party might argue this specific disclosure should guide the term’s construction.
Term: "characteristics of the used washing liquid" (’609 Patent, Claim 14)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the complaint alleges that "ECM data analysis" meets this limitation (Compl. ¶34). Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether analyzing engine performance data falls within the scope of a claim that, on its face, appears to require analysis of the physical fluid.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined. A party could argue that engine performance metrics are an indirect measurement of the "characteristics" of the wash's effectiveness, and thus fall within a plain and ordinary meaning of the term in the context of the overall system.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example of what is being measured: "a Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) may be measured by a measuring means" by assessing the liquid's "conductivity" (’609 Patent, col. 8:10-14). This suggests the "characteristics" are intrinsic physical or chemical properties of the liquid itself, not external performance metrics of the engine being washed.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of the ’609 and ’860 patents. The allegations are based on pre-suit knowledge stemming from two letters Plaintiff sent to Defendant in September and December of 2013, which allegedly identified the patents and offered them for license. The complaint states Defendant did not respond and continued its allegedly infringing activities with "full knowledge" of the patented technology (Compl. ¶¶37-40, 51-54).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of technical and definitional scope: can the claim term "characteristics of the used washing liquid," which the ’609 patent specification exemplifies as the liquid's Total Dissolved Solids, be construed to cover the "ECM data analysis" allegedly performed by the accused system, which typically involves engine performance metrics?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of proof of operation: can Plaintiff substantiate its conclusory allegations for the ’262 patent by showing that the accused Cyclean system actually employs an "information detector" that automatically communicates with a "control unit" to select pre-set washing programs, or will discovery reveal a system with a different, more manual architecture?
- The case will also involve a factual determination of parameters: for the ’860 patent, does the accused Cyclean system, as actually used by Defendant, operate within all of the specific and overlapping numerical ranges for pressure, particle velocity, droplet size, and flow rate that are required by the asserted method claim?