DCT
1:19-cv-01669
Kamstrup As v. Axioma Metering UAB
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Kamstrup A/S (Denmark)
- Defendant: Axioma Metering UAB (Lithuania)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Renner Otto; Holland & Hart LLP
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01669, D. Colo., 06/10/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendant is a foreign entity that does not reside in the United States and has offered for sale, sold, or imported the accused products into the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ultrasonic water meter infringes a patent related to a meter housing constructed from a monolithic polymer structure.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves ultrasonic smart water meters, which use a solid-state polymer housing and electronic sensors to improve durability and manufacturing efficiency over traditional mechanical meters with moving parts.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the asserted patent on June 4, 2019. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the asserted patent was the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR2019-01640), filed September 23, 2019, which concluded with the cancellation of all patent claims (1-15) in a certificate issued on April 21, 2023.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-12-15 | ’957 Patent Priority Date |
| 2014-08-19 | ’957 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-06-04 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant |
| 2019-06-09 | Accused Product U.S. Introduction at trade show begins |
| 2019-06-10 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2019-09-23 | IPR challenging ’957 Patent filed |
| 2023-04-21 | IPR Certificate issues cancelling all claims of ’957 Patent |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,806,957 - "ULTRASONIC FLOW METER HOUSING FORMED BY A MONOLITHIC POLYMER STRUCTURE"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the complexity and cost associated with fabricating conventional flow meters, which often require numerous production and assembly steps for their multi-part housings (’957 Patent, col. 1:38-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a flow meter housing constructed from a “monolithic polymer structure being cast in one piece” (’957 Patent, col. 1:59-60). This single-piece structure integrates a flow tube for the fluid and a separate, sealed cavity for the electronic components, which share a common wall (’957 Patent, col. 1:60-65). This design is intended to simplify manufacturing by reducing the number of molding and assembly steps required (’957 Patent, col. 2:7-15).
- Technical Importance: The single-step molding process for the entire housing aimed to provide a more cost-efficient method for producing durable, solid-state ultrasonic water meters compared to prior art designs (’957 Patent, col. 1:55-58).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-7, 10-13, and 15 (’957 Patent, col. 8:51-col. 9:30; Compl. ¶26-27).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- An ultrasonic flow meter housing comprising a monolithic polymer structure being cast in one piece
- The monolithic structure includes a flow tube and a cavity separated from the flow tube
- The flow tube defines a through-going straight flow section for fluid passage between an inlet and an outlet
- A part of a wall of the flow section is also part of an inside surface of the cavity, creating a shared wall area
- The cavity is arranged for housing at least one ultrasonic transducer at the shared wall area
- A measurement circuit is operationally connected to the transducer to allow measurement of the fluid's flow rate
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The QALCOSONIC W1 Ultrasonic Water Meter (“W1”) (’Compl. ¶5).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the W1 is an ultrasonic water meter with a “durable composite body” that functions as a “monolithic polymer structure” containing both a water pipe and a separate cavity (’Compl. ¶16, ¶22). This cavity allegedly houses ultrasound transducers that measure water flow by transmitting waves that penetrate the wall of the pipe, a design principle the complaint claims is shared with its own product (’Compl. ¶16). The complaint notes that Defendant intended to officially introduce the W1 to the U.S. market at a trade show in Denver in June 2019 (’Compl. ¶18).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’957 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An ultrasonic flow meter housing comprising: a monolithic polymer structure being cast in one piece, | The W1 is an ultrasonic flow meter with a "durable composite body," which the complaint alleges is a monolithic polymer structure cast in one piece. The complaint provides a photograph of the accused product's main body to illustrate this element (a). (Compl. ¶22, p. 6). | ¶22 | col. 1:59-60 |
| the monolithic structure includes a flow tube and a cavity separated from the flow tube, | An annotated cross-section photograph of the W1 is provided to show that the monolithic structure (a) includes a bottom portion that is a flow tube (c) and a top portion that forms a cavity (b). (Compl. ¶22, p. 7). | ¶22 | col. 1:61-62 |
| wherein the flow tube defines a through-going straight flow section arranged for passage of a fluid between an inlet and an outlet, | The flow tube (c) is alleged to form a "through-going straight flow section" (d) for fluid passage between an inlet (e) and an outlet (f), as shown in an annotated image. (Compl. ¶22, p. 7). | ¶22 | col. 1:62-64 |
| wherein a part of a wall of the flow section is part of an inside surface of the cavity, so that the flow section and the cavity has a shared wall area; | The complaint alleges the monolithic structure (a) includes a wall of the flow section (d) that is part of an inside surface (z) of the cavity (b), resulting in a shared wall area (g). (Compl. ¶22, p. 8). | ¶22 | col. 1:64-col. 2:1 |
| and wherein the cavity is arranged for housing at least one ultrasonic transducer, at the shared wall area; | An image of the W1 with its internal components visible shows the cavity (b) housing at least one ultrasonic transducer (h). (Compl. ¶22, p. 9). | ¶22 | col. 2:1-3 |
| a measurement circuit operationally connected to the at least one ultrasonic transducer so as to allow measurement of a flow rate of the fluid. | The complaint includes a photograph alleging to show a PCB (j) that functions as the measurement circuit, coupled to the ultrasonic transducer (h) and a display via a cable (k). (Compl. ¶22, p. 9). | ¶22 | col. 2:3-6 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused product’s “durable composite body” (Compl. ¶22) falls within the scope of the claimed “monolithic polymer structure.” The outcome could depend on the construction of “polymer structure” and whether it is broad enough to read on a “composite” material.
- Technical Questions: The infringement allegation hinges on the assertion that the W1 housing is “cast in one piece” (Compl. ¶22). A potential point of dispute is what evidence demonstrates that the W1’s housing is manufactured using a single-step casting process as contemplated by the patent, rather than through an alternative assembly of multiple components.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "monolithic polymer structure"
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the asserted claims. The infringement case rests on whether the accused W1’s “durable composite body” meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a composite material can be considered a “polymer structure” under the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term is not limited to pure polymers, stating that the “polymer material may be a composite material, i.e. based on a polymer and another type of material, such as carbon, glass or the like” (’957 Patent, col. 6:1-3).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the plain meaning of “polymer structure” implies a component made primarily or entirely of polymer, and that the single reference to “composite material” is insufficient to broaden the term, especially when read in light of the repeated emphasis on “polymer” throughout the patent.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead any counts for indirect infringement (induced or contributory). The allegations are limited to direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶26-27).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement, asserting that Axioma had knowledge of the ’957 Patent (Compl. ¶25). This allegation is supported by reference to a notice letter sent by Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendant on June 4, 2019, prior to the filing of the lawsuit (Compl. ¶20, ¶28).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue for infringement would have been one of definitional scope: can the term "monolithic polymer structure", as used in the patent, be construed to cover the accused product’s “durable composite body,” and what is the evidentiary standard for proving it is “cast in one piece”?
- The most significant question raised by the case's procedural history is one of mootness and finality: in light of the subsequent Inter Partes Review that resulted in the cancellation of all asserted claims, the dispositive issue for the litigation became when and how the invalidation of the ’957 Patent terminated the legal controversy between the parties in the district court action.