DCT
5:17-cv-01689
Niagara Bottling LLC v. Aquahydrate Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Niagara Bottling, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: AQUAhydrate, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rutan & Tucker, LLP
- Case Identification: 5:17-cv-01689, C.D. Cal., 08/22/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is a California corporation with its headquarters in the judicial district and because it sells or offers for sale the accused products within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s AQUAhydrate brand of bottled drinking water infringes a patent related to a process for producing improved alkaline water and the resulting product.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the market for "functional" or enhanced bottled waters, specifically those that are pH-modified to be alkaline, which are marketed as having health benefits.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the patent-in-suit via a letter on September 28, 2015, nearly two years prior to filing the lawsuit. This pre-suit notice forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.
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 Niagara Bottling, LLC |
| 2015-09-28 | Plaintiff sends letter to Defendant alleging infringement |
| 2017-08-22 | Complaint Filed |
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 “’902 Patent”).
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, prior methods for producing it—either by simple electrolysis of tap water or by adding minerals—lacked a consistent, improved process for creating a high-quality final product with specific characteristics (’902 Patent, col. 1:11-30, 1:40-46).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a multi-stage process for creating a precisely defined alkaline water product. The process begins by filtering and then highly purifying potable water to remove nearly all dissolved solids, then adds back a selection of alkaline minerals, and finally subjects this re-mineralized water to electrolysis to achieve specific target ranges for pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), and alkalinity (’902 Patent, Abstract; FIG. 1). The disclosed process aims to produce a stable and consistent product distinct from simply electrolyzing tap water (’902 Patent, col. 2:53-68).
- Technical Importance: The claimed invention provides a method for creating a manufactured, precisely-controlled alkaline water product, as opposed to relying on the variable mineral content of municipal tap water as a source for electrolysis (’902 Patent, col. 3:3-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent product claim 12 as representative of the invention (Compl. ¶9).
- The essential elements of Claim 12 are:
- An improved alkaline drinking water product, comprising:
- 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 does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but alleges infringement of "at least one claim" (Compl. ¶13).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the "AQUAhydrate drinking water product" ("AQUAhydrate Product") (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the AQUAhydrate Product is advertised as "being filtered, having added electrolytes and minerals, and having a 'pH level raised from neutral to an alkaline pH9+ state'" (Compl. ¶12). The complaint includes a reference to visual evidence supporting these marketing claims. Exhibit B to the complaint is described as "a collection of advertisements from AQUAhydrate's website showing the AQUAhydrate Product and AQUAhydrate's claims regarding the product" (Compl. ¶13, ¶20-21). The complaint does not provide further technical details about the product's manufacturing process or its specific chemical properties beyond these marketing descriptions.
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 complaint alleges the AQUAhydrate Product is advertised as being "filtered" and that it is raised from a "neutral" state, which may imply purification. | ¶12 | col. 7:1-3 |
| to which has been added selected alkaline minerals, | The complaint alleges the AQUAhydrate Product is advertised as "having added electrolytes and minerals." | ¶12 | col. 7:4 |
| 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 the product has a "pH level raised from neutral to an alkaline pH9+ state." | ¶12 | col. 7:5-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint relies on Defendant's marketing claims (e.g., "pH9+ state") to allege infringement (Compl. ¶12). It does not, however, provide factual allegations, such as from product testing or other analysis, showing that the accused product meets the specific numerical ranges required by claim 12 for pH (9-10), TDS (22-240 ppm), and alkalinity (12-216 ppm). The litigation may turn on whether discovery reveals that the accused product actually has these claimed characteristics.
- Process Questions: Claim 12 is a product-by-process claim, requiring that the product be made through a specific sequence of steps, including being "electrolyzed" after minerals have been added. The complaint alleges the product has a "pH level raised" but does not allege facts showing that this is accomplished via electrolysis, as opposed to other methods of raising pH. A central question will be whether the plaintiff can prove the accused product is manufactured using the claimed process sequence.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "electrolyzed"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the final manufacturing step that allegedly imparts the product's key properties. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused product is made using an electrolysis process at all, and if so, whether it is performed after the addition of minerals as the claim requires. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused product achieves its alkaline state through a non-electrolytic method (e.g., purely through the addition of alkaline mineral compounds), it would not infringe this claim limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses electrolysis as a conventional method for producing alkaline water, which might suggest the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning without being unduly limited to the patent's specific embodiment (’902 Patent, col. 2:35-41).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently describes a specific sequence of steps where electrolysis occurs after purification and remineralization (’902 Patent, Abstract; FIG. 1; col. 4:39-53). A party could argue that, in the context of the patent, "electrolyzed" must mean electrolysis of water that has already been purified and remineralized according to the preceding claim steps.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged continued infringement after receiving a letter from Plaintiff on September 28, 2015, which provided notice of the ’902 Patent (Compl. ¶14). This allegation of pre-suit knowledge, if proven, could support a finding of willfulness and potential enhancement of damages.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case appears to hinge on two central questions:
- A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can the plaintiff produce evidence, beyond the defendant's marketing statements, that the AQUAhydrate product meets the specific, quantitative limitations for pH, TDS, and alkalinity as recited in Claim 12?
- A key question will be one of process verification: Can the plaintiff prove that the accused product is created using the specific manufacturing sequence of the product-by-process claim, namely that it is "electrolyzed" after minerals are added to purified water, or is its "pH9+ state" achieved through an alternative, non-infringing method?