DCT
5:17-cv-01688
Niagara Bottling LLC v. Alka Products Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Niagara Bottling, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Alka Products, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rutan & Tucker, LLP
- Case Identification: 5:17-cv-01688, C.D. Cal., 08/21/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant is a California corporation with its primary place of business within the district and sells the accused products in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Alka Power" drinking water infringes a patent related to a process for producing improved alkaline drinking water and the resulting product.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns multi-step methods for manufacturing bottled alkaline water with specific, controlled chemical characteristics, a product category marketed for potential health benefits.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff Niagara Bottling, LLC, acquired the patent-in-suit by assignment in 2014. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant on September 28, 2015, providing notice of the patent, an allegation that forms the basis for the willfulness claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-04-25 | ’902 Patent Priority Date |
| 2003-06-03 | ’902 Patent Issue Date |
| 2014-09-12 | ’902 Patent Assigned to Plaintiff |
| 2015-09-28 | Plaintiff Notifies Defendant of Patent |
| 2017-08-21 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,572,902 - Process for Producing Improved Alkaline Drinking Water and the Product Produced Thereby
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,572,902, Process for Producing Improved Alkaline Drinking Water and the Product Produced Thereby, issued June 3, 2003.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that while alkaline drinking water is known to have health benefits, such as antioxidant properties, there is a need for "specific improvements in alkaline drinking water by the use of a specific sequence of processing steps" beyond conventional methods. (’902 Patent, col. 2:11-30, col. 2:50-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a process and resulting product that begins by filtering and then purifying potable water to a state of very low mineral content (less than 10 parts per million of total dissolved solids). (’902 Patent, col. 4:55-58). Next, "selected alkaline minerals" are added back into this highly purified water. (’902 Patent, col. 4:5-19). Finally, this re-mineralized water is electrolyzed to create a final product with a specific pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), and alkalinity. (’902 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This controlled, multi-step approach is designed to produce a consistent alkaline water product that is odor-free, has a pleasant taste, and possesses "the potential of significant health benefits, include antioxidant capability." (’902 Patent, col. 5:11-16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent product claim 12 as representative of the invention. (Compl. ¶9).
- Claim 12 requires:
- potable water which has been filtered and purified,
- with a total dissolved solids of less than 10 parts per million,
- to which has been added selected alkaline minerals,
- and which has then been electrolyzed to produce alkaline water,
- having a pH in the range of 9-10,
- with a TDS (total dissolved solids) of 22-240 ppm,
- and an alkalinity of 12-216 ppm.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one claim" of the patent. (Compl. ¶13).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "Alka Power" drinking water product. (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Alka Power product is advertised as "being filtered and purified, having added alkaline minerals, and having a stable pH in the range of 9-10." (Compl. ¶12). To support its allegations about the product's characteristics, the complaint provides a collection of advertisements from Defendant's website which allegedly show claims regarding the product's filtration, purification, and alkaline properties. (Compl. ¶20, Ex. B). The complaint does not provide further technical details about the product's composition or manufacturing process.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’902 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| potable water which has been filtered and purified, with a total dissolved solids of less than 10 parts per million | The accused "Alka Power" product is advertised as being "filtered and purified." | ¶12 | col. 4:55-58 |
| to which has been added selected alkaline minerals | The accused "Alka Power" product is advertised as "having added alkaline minerals." | ¶12 | col. 4:11-15 |
| and which has then been electrolyzed to produce alkaline water | The complaint does not specify how this element is met, but it is required to produce the final product. | ¶13, ¶16 | col. 4:40-42 |
| having a pH in the range of 9-10 | The accused "Alka Power" product is advertised as "having a stable pH in the range of 9-10." | ¶12 | col. 5:23-24 |
| with a TDS (total dissolved solids) of 22-240 ppm | The complaint alleges the product meets every element, but provides no specific facts for this limitation. | ¶13, ¶16 | col. 5:25-26 |
| and an alkalinity of 12-216 ppm | The complaint alleges the product meets every element, but provides no specific facts for this limitation. | ¶13, ¶16 | col. 5:27-28 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement theory relies heavily on Defendant's advertising, which is only alleged to cover the "filtered," "purified," "added minerals," and "pH" limitations. (Compl. ¶12). A central question will be whether the accused Alka Power product, when tested, actually possesses the specific numerical ranges for intermediate TDS (<10 ppm), final TDS (22-240 ppm), and alkalinity (12-216 ppm) required by the claim. The complaint does not provide factual allegations, such as from product testing, to support these limitations.
- Scope Questions: The case may raise the question of whether the manufacturing process for Alka Power meets the implicit process steps of the product-by-process claim. For instance, does the defendant's process involve an intermediate step where the water is "purified" to have "a total dissolved solids of less than 10 parts per million" before minerals are added, as required by the claim's sequence?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "purified"
Context and Importance: Claim 12 requires the starting water to be "purified" to a state of less than 10 ppm TDS before mineral addition. The construction of this term is critical, as it defines the required purity of the intermediate water. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if it implies a specific method of purification.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined, which could support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning: any process that results in water meeting the <10 ppm TDS limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly and specifically discloses a "reverse osmosis water purification unit" as the mechanism for achieving the purification step. (’902 Patent, col. 4:40-54). A party could argue that the term "purified" in the context of the patent is limited to purification via reverse osmosis, as this is the only method described for this critical step.
The Term: "added selected alkaline minerals"
Context and Importance: This limitation is central to the invention's two-part concept of "purify-then-remineralize." The infringement analysis will depend on what minerals are present in the accused product and whether they were "added" after a purification step.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of potential minerals, stating they "may include several different alkaline minerals, including magnesium, calcium, potassium and sodium, among others." (’902 Patent, col. 4:13-15). This suggests the term is not limited to a specific list.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that the addition of minerals is important because "they provide the desired antioxidant effects, as well as other health benefits." (’902 Patent, col. 4:17-19). A party might argue that the term is limited to minerals that are "selected" and "added" for the express purpose of providing health benefits, as opposed to minerals that are residual or added for other reasons, such as taste.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's continued sales after receiving a letter from Plaintiff on September 28, 2015, which allegedly provided "knowledge of the '902 Patent." (Compl. ¶14).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be an evidentiary one: the complaint’s allegations are based on the defendant's advertising. The key question is whether discovery and product testing will confirm that the accused "Alka Power" product actually meets the specific, quantitative limitations of Claim 12 for intermediate TDS, final TDS, and alkalinity, which are not mentioned in the cited advertisements.
- The case may also turn on a question of process conformance: as Claim 12 is a product-by-process claim, a core dispute may be whether the accused product is made by a process that mirrors the claim's sequence. Specifically, is the water first "purified" to the claimed sub-10 ppm TDS level before "selected alkaline minerals" are "added," or does the defendant's manufacturing process achieve its final composition through a different sequence of steps?