DCT
8:19-cv-01904
Nagui Mankaruse v. Raytheon Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Nagui Mankaruse (California)
- Defendant: Raytheon Company (Delaware); TRS US LLC (Delaware); et al.
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Nagui Mankaruse, In Pro Se
- Case Identification: 8:19-cv-01904, C.D. Cal., 11/22/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged in the Central District of California based on Defendants’ residence in Orange County and the commission of infringing acts within the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendant, alleges that Defendant’s military radar and missile defense systems infringe a U.S. patent related to high-performance cooling technology that Plaintiff invented and disclosed to the company to solve an alleged product-overheating issue.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves modular "cold plates" that use heat pipes to efficiently dissipate heat from high-power electronics, a critical function for performance and reliability in advanced military and aerospace systems.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a detailed history of pre-suit interactions, including Plaintiff's disclosure of the patented technology to Defendant in 2008 while employed there, subsequent discussions regarding a potential license at a 6% royalty rate, and prior related litigation between the parties in California state court.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-06-29 | U.S. Patent 6,411,512 Priority Date |
| 2002-06-25 | U.S. Patent 6,411,512 Issue Date |
| 2008-08-05 | Plaintiff alleges disclosure of patented technology to Raytheon |
| 2008-11-01 | Plaintiff alleges licensing discussions with Raytheon (approx. date) |
| 2009-10-01 | Plaintiff alleges further licensing discussions with Raytheon (approx. date) |
| 2012-04-17 | Plaintiff's employment with Raytheon allegedly terminated |
| 2013-11-06 | News report on allegations aired |
| 2016-09-30 | First prior state court case filed by Plaintiff |
| 2017-07-31 | Second prior state court case filed by Plaintiff |
| 2019-11-22 | Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,411,512 - "High Performance Cold Plate"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,411,512, "High Performance Cold Plate," issued June 25, 2002 (the "'512' Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the challenges of cooling high-power electronic components on printed circuit boards. It notes that conventional "cold plates" often involve high costs, long manufacturing lead times, and complex fabrication processes (such as vacuum brazing), which can result in lower reliability. (Compl. ¶65; '512' Patent, col. 1:46-55, col. 2:9-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a modular cold plate assembly built from three distinct, mass-producible components: (1) a thermally conductive base that interfaces with the heat-generating electronics; (2) a "heat pipe assembly" (which can be a thermal plane containing embedded heat pipes) that efficiently spreads heat with a minimal temperature gradient; and (3) one or two "compact heat exchangers" that transfer the heat from the heat pipe assembly to a circulating cooling fluid. ('512' Patent, Abstract; col. 2:44-54). This modular construction is intended to simplify manufacturing, reduce costs, and increase reliability. ('512' Patent, col. 2:35-43).
- Technical Importance: This approach provides a standardized and scalable method for thermal management, allowing for effective cooling of increasingly dense and powerful electronic systems found in demanding applications. ('512' Patent, col. 2:65-col. 3:3).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1 through 10 of the '512' Patent (Compl. ¶61). The independent claims are 1 and 5.
- Independent Claim 1:
- A heat pipe assembly including at least one heat pipe adapted for internally circulating a first thermally conductive fluid.
- At least one compact heat exchanger engaging and thermally connected to the heat pipe assembly, adapted for internally circulating a second thermally conductive fluid.
- Independent Claim 5:
- A thermally conductive base for being affixed to a circuit board.
- A heat pipe assembly engaging and thermally connected to the base, constructed as a thermal plane including one or more internal heat pipes.
- At least one compact heat exchanger engaging and thermally connected to the heat pipe assembly.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are cooling systems within the "Fire Finder RMI," "Sentinel Improved Radars," and "THAAD Missile Defense Systems." (Compl. ¶49).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these are advanced military radar and missile defense systems whose Power Amplifier Modules ("PAMs") and Transmit Receive Integrated Microwave Modules ("TRIMMs") were producing excessive heat, which "compromised the accuracy of information produced by the Radars." (Compl. ¶27). Plaintiff alleges that after he disclosed his patented technology to Defendants in 2008 to solve this overheating problem, Defendants incorporated the technology into the cooling systems for these products. (Compl. ¶¶29, 59-60, 64). The complaint references a "Raytheon Test Report (Attachment #2)" which allegedly confirms the viability of the patented technology for solving the overheating issue. (Compl. ¶66).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. The following table summarizes the infringement theory for the '512' Patent based on narrative allegations in the complaint.
’512 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a heat pipe assembly including at least one heat pipe adapted for internally circulating a first thermally conductive fluid for carrying heat dissipated from electrical components of a circuit board | The accused cooling systems allegedly utilize "heat pipes" and "Vapor Chambers (VC)" to cool high heat dissipating electronic components within the radar and missile defense systems. | ¶39, ¶65 | col. 4:38-44 |
| at least one compact heat exchanger engaging and thermally connected to said heat pipe assembly, said heat exchanger adapted for internally circulating a second thermally conductive fluid | The accused systems allegedly use "forced fluid coolant through heat exchanger(s)" that are "thermally connected to the heat exchanger(s)" to remove heat from the heat pipe assembly. | ¶65 | col. 4:57-61 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Factual Question: The central dispute will likely be factual: what is the actual physical architecture of the cooling systems inside the accused military products? As these are sensitive defense systems, obtaining this information through discovery may present challenges, but it will be essential to determine if they contain the elements required by the claims.
- Scope Question: Does the cooling apparatus in the accused Raytheon systems constitute a "heat pipe assembly" thermally connected to a separate "compact heat exchanger" as claimed, or is it a more integrated, unitary cooling system that falls outside the scope of the claims? The complaint's allegation that "flat heat pipes or sometimes known as Vapor Chambers or VC" are covered by the '512' Patent suggests this may be a point of dispute. (Compl. ¶39).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "heat pipe assembly"
Context and Importance: This term defines the core heat-spreading component of the invention. Whether the accused products infringe will depend heavily on whether their internal thermal management hardware includes a structure that meets the court's construction of this term.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the assembly can comprise a "heat pipe thermal plane or individual heat pipes," suggesting flexibility in its form. ('512' Patent, col. 2:48-49). This language may support a construction that is not limited to a single, monolithic plate.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiments consistently depict the "heat pipe assembly" (e.g., item 20 in Fig. 2) as a distinct modular unit sandwiched between the base and the heat exchanger. A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to such a discrete, modular component.
The Term: "compact heat exchanger"
Context and Importance: This element is required to remove heat from the "heat pipe assembly." A key question is whether the accused systems contain a structure that qualifies as this claimed element, separate from the heat pipe component.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the heat exchanger as being of "laminated or finned" construction and made of "aluminum or copper," which covers a wide array of conventional heat exchanger designs. ('512' Patent, col. 4:60-62).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendants may argue that if their systems use, for example, a cooling manifold machined directly into a larger housing that also contains heat pipes, such a structure is not a separate "compact heat exchanger" that is "engaging and thermally connected to" the heat pipe assembly, but is rather part of a single, integrated unit.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. (Compl. ¶67). The allegations state that Plaintiff, while an employee, disclosed his patented technology to Defendants on August 5, 2008, to solve a known overheating problem, participated in meetings and testing, and engaged in licensing discussions. (Compl. ¶¶29, 31, 37, 40). The complaint further alleges that a "standard royalty fee of 6% of gross sales" was discussed, and supports this by citing to an internal Raytheon policy document. (Compl. ¶¶32, 37). The complaint provides this document, titled "Attachment #4 Raytheon Intellectual Property Licensing Rules," which states, "A royalty rate of 6% on sales prices or products is to be charged." (Compl. Att. 4, p. 38, §4.3).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: What is the precise technical architecture of the cooling systems within the accused Fire Finder, Sentinel, and THAAD systems? The case will likely turn on facts established through discovery concerning the design of these sensitive military systems and whether they practice the claimed modular combination of a "heat pipe assembly" and a distinct "compact heat exchanger."
- A key legal question will be one of claim construction: Can the term "heat pipe assembly," as used in the context of the '512' patent’s modular design, be construed to cover the specific thermal management solutions implemented in the accused products, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed modular architecture and the potentially more integrated design of the accused systems?
- A third major focus will be the impact of pre-suit conduct: What legal effect will the detailed allegations of Plaintiff’s disclosure of the technology to Raytheon while an employee, and the subsequent licensing discussions, have on the case? These facts will be critical for the willfulness analysis and may also give rise to defenses from Raytheon concerning ownership, shop rights, or an implied license to practice the invention.