Nagui Mankaruse v. Raytheon Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Nagui Mankaruse (California)
  • Defendant: Raytheon Company (Delaware); TRS LLC US (fka Thales-Raytheon Systems Company LLC) (Delaware); and 16 named individuals.
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
• Case Identification: 8:19-cv-01904, C.D. Cal., 11/22/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants' residence in the State of California, commission of infringing acts within the judicial district, and the design, offer for sale, marketing, and sale of infringing products in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ radar and missile defense systems infringe a U.S. patent related to high-performance cooling systems for electronic components.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns modular cooling plates using heat pipes to dissipate thermal energy from high-power electronics, a critical function in advanced military and aerospace systems.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint references two prior state court actions filed by the Plaintiff in 2016 and 2017. It also notes that a motion to declare the Plaintiff a vexatious litigant in state court was denied on August 1, 2019, and attaches the corresponding court order.

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 allegedly disclosed patented technology to Defendants
2009-10-01	Approximate date of further discussions regarding Plaintiff's technology
2013-11-06	News report allegedly aired regarding the dispute
2016-09-30	Plaintiff filed first related state court action
2017-07-31	Plaintiff filed second related state court action
2019-08-01	State court denied Defendants' motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant
2019-11-22	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,411,512, High performance cold plate, Issued June 25, 2002

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for improved liquid-cooling systems for high-power electronic components. Conventional methods, such as casting a plate around cooling tubes or machining and brazing two plate halves, were described as costly, complex, and leading to lower reliability (US6411512B1, col. 1:11–2:16).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a modular cooling apparatus assembled from three distinct, mass-producible components: (1) a thermally conductive base that interfaces with the electronics, (2) a "heat pipe thermal plane" or individual heat pipes that efficiently transfer heat across the assembly with a minimal temperature gradient, and (3) one or two compact heat exchangers that remove the heat into a circulating fluid. These modules are bonded together to form the final cold plate assembly, simplifying manufacturing (US 6411512, Abstract; col. 2:34–54).
• Technical Importance: This modular approach sought to reduce the manufacturing costs and lead times associated with traditional cold plates while providing the high-performance, homogenous cooling required by increasingly dense and powerful electronic systems (US 6411512, col. 2:17–24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1 through 10 (Compl. ¶61). Independent claim 1 is central.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • 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.
  • 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 and for carrying heat dissipated from said heat pipe assembly.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the general assertion of claims 1-10 implies their inclusion.

Multi-Patent Capsule

• Patent Identification: Canadian Patent 2,389,458, High performance cold plate
• Technology Synopsis: The patent, part of the same family as the ’512 Patent, relates to a modular cooling system for dissipating heat from electronic components. It combines a base plate, a heat pipe assembly, and a heat exchanger to create an efficient and manufacturable cooling solution.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "all Ten its Claims (Claims 1 through 10)" (Compl. ¶61).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the cooling systems in Defendants' Fire Finder, Sentinel, and THAAD radar systems infringe this patent (Compl. ¶¶ 59, 64).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the cooling systems within at least three of Defendants' military radar and defense products: the Fire Finder RMI, the Sentinel Improved Radars, and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) Missile Defense System (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 64).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that in 2008, Defendants were developing radar systems whose Power Amplifier Modules ("PAMs") and Transmit Receive Integrated Microwave Modules ("TRIMMs") produced "excessive heat" that "compromised the accuracy of information produced by the Radars" (Compl. ¶27). Plaintiff alleges his patented technology was disclosed to and ultimately used by Defendants to solve these "persisting over-heating Radars" issues, specifically to "isothermize the TRIMMs electronics temperatures within 5 degrees Celsius" (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 14, 36). The complaint frames these radar systems as major programs that constitute a "big share of Raytheon Co products and revenues" (Compl. ¶45).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or provide specific technical evidence mapping claim elements to the accused products. It states that an "Infringement Analysis" and other supporting documents exist as Attachments 1, 2, and 3, but notes these are "To Be Filed Under Seal" and they are not included with the public filing (Compl. p. 33). The infringement theory must therefore be inferred from narrative paragraphs.

Paragraph 65 of the complaint provides the most direct, albeit general, infringement allegation, asserting that the technology is used for "literately to cool a high heat dissipating object or electronic component(s) on a circuit board assembly using forced fluid coolant through heat exchanger(s)." It further alleges, "The heat pipe assembly has within circulating first fluid in a closed loop inside the heat pipe and thermally connected to the heat exchanger(s) circulating second fluid in an open or closed loop" (Compl. ¶65).

Based on this narrative, the core allegations for Claim 1 of the ’512 Patent can be summarized as follows:

’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 complaint alleges the accused systems contain a "heat pipe assembly" with a "circulating first fluid in a closed loop inside the heat pipe" to cool high-heat electronic components on a circuit board.	¶65	col. 7:15-19
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 complaint alleges the accused systems use "heat exchanger(s)" that are "thermally connected" to the heat pipe assembly and circulate a "second fluid" or "forced fluid coolant" to remove heat.	¶65	col. 7:20-24

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: The central issue is the lack of public evidence. What proof, if any, will be produced in discovery to demonstrate that the accused radar systems actually contain a "heat pipe assembly" and a "compact heat exchanger" that operate in the manner required by the claims? The current allegations are conclusory.
  • Technical Questions: Does the cooling technology in the Fire Finder, Sentinel, and THAAD systems functionally and structurally match the claimed invention? The dispute may turn on whether Defendants' systems achieve cooling through a different, non-infringing technical mechanism.
  • Scope Questions: A likely point of contention will be the definition of the claim terms themselves. For example, the case may raise the question of whether the Defendants' cooling modules, even if effective, qualify as a "heat pipe assembly" as that term is understood in the context of the ’512 patent's specification.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "heat pipe assembly"
• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention. Plaintiff’s entire infringement case rests on proving that Defendants’ radar systems incorporate a structure meeting this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendants will likely argue that their cooling systems, while potentially using heat pipes in some form, do not constitute the specific "assembly" described and claimed in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the assembly can be "constructed as a thermal plane or individual heat pipes" (US 6411512, col. 8:36-39). This could support an interpretation that covers various configurations beyond the specific embodiments shown.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a preferred embodiment as "a thermal plane utilizing embedded copper/water heat pipes... sandwiched between two outer aluminum plates" (US 6411512, col. 4:27-29). Defendants may argue this language limits the scope of the term to a more specific, multi-component structure.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint's primary count is for direct infringement (Compl. p. 24). It does not contain separate counts for induced or contributory infringement, although it names numerous individual employees and executives as defendants.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint strongly alleges willful infringement, asserting that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patents since at least August 2008 (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 53). The basis for this claim includes allegations of direct disclosures by Plaintiff to Defendants' engineers and managers, meetings to discuss licensing the technology, and an alleged offer of a "standard royalty fee of 6% of the gross sales" (Compl. ¶¶ 31-32, 37). To support this narrative, the complaint includes a copy of an internal Raytheon Co policy document. Attachment 4 is a two-page Raytheon Co "Company Policy" document dated October 24, 2002, titled "Product Line Transfers; Royalty Payments," which outlines a standard 6% royalty rate for intra-company technology licenses (Compl. pp. 38-39). The complaint further argues that Defendants' alleged denials of use constitute "deliberate indifference" and "willful blindness" (Compl. ¶¶ 67-68).

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

1. A central evidentiary question will be whether discovery can substantiate the complaint's currently conclusory technical allegations. Can the Plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that the accused radar systems actually contain the specific modular architecture—combining a "heat pipe assembly" and a "compact heat exchanger"—as required by the asserted claims?
2. The case will likely involve a significant dispute over claim scope, focusing on the construction of the term "heat pipe assembly". A key issue for the court will be whether this term is broad enough to read on the specific cooling solutions used in Defendants' systems, or if those systems utilize a technically distinct, non-infringing design.
3. An overarching question will be one of legal and factual entanglement: How will the court manage a patent dispute where the infringement allegations are deeply interwoven with a parallel narrative of trade secret misappropriation, breach of a verbal licensing agreement, and wrongful termination, particularly given the Plaintiff's pro se status?