DCT

3:20-cv-01900

Geomatrix Systems LLC v. Eljen Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:20-cv-01900, D. Conn., 06/08/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as both Plaintiff and Defendant are organized under the laws of Connecticut and have their principal places of business within the District of Connecticut.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Mantis® branded wastewater systems infringe four U.S. patents related to wastewater leaching and leach field systems.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns onsite wastewater treatment systems, commonly known as septic or leach field systems, which are critical for residential and commercial properties not connected to municipal sewer lines.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a lengthy pre-suit history, including communications starting before the first patent issued, a prior lawsuit filed by Plaintiff in 2016 that was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, and Defendant’s submission of prior art references to the USPTO during the prosecution of the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-06-04 Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents
2015-11-03 U.S. Patent No. 9,174,863 Issues
2015-11-04 Plaintiff alleges first post-issuance notice to Defendant regarding ’863 Patent
2016-05-16 Plaintiff files prior lawsuit against Defendant alleging infringement of the '863 Patent
2016-06-28 Prior lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice
2016-12-13 U.S. Patent No. 9,650,271 Issues
2018-09-04 U.S. Patent No. 10,065,875 Issues
2019-08-27 U.S. Patent No. 10,392,278 Issues
Summer 2019 Defendant allegedly ceases sale of "Prior Mantis Products"
2021-06-08 Plaintiff files First Amended Complaint

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,174,863 - "Leach Field System"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,174,863, "Leach Field System," issued November 3, 2015.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional leaching conduits (e.g., arch-shaped chambers or stone-filled trenches) as being wide and requiring deep burial, which often leads to anaerobic soil conditions. These conditions can cause a "biomat" to form on the bottom and sides of the conduit, reducing the system's effectiveness at infiltrating wastewater into the soil (ʼ863 Patent, col. 1:36-58).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a wastewater system using a plurality of high aspect ratio (tall and narrow) channels. These channels are spaced apart from each other, and the "separations" between them are filled with sand, granular material, or left as a void. This configuration is intended to create more surface area for aerobic treatment closer to the ground surface where oxygen is more available, thereby improving wastewater processing and preventing biomat formation (ʼ863 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:4-10). Figure 14 of the patent illustrates a cross-section of such a high aspect ratio channel (ʼ863 Patent, Fig. 14).
  • Technical Importance: This approach seeks to improve the efficiency and longevity of leach field systems by promoting aerobic conditions, which are more effective for wastewater treatment than the anaerobic conditions that can develop in traditional, deeper systems (ʼ863 Patent, col. 2:1-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 22 (Compl. ¶173-175, 185-187, 317, 320-321).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a system comprising:
    • A plurality of channels, each having a height to width aspect ratio in a specified range.
    • Paired upright infiltrative surfaces that are substantially parallel.
    • Adjacent channels separated along a majority of their length by two or more inches.
    • The separations comprising sand, or a granular material, or a void comprising the majority or all of the volume of the separation.
    • A first wastewater delivery conduit with egress openings.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶172, 184).

U.S. Patent No. 9,650,271 - "Wastewater Leaching System"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,650,271, "Wastewater Leaching System," issued December 13, 2016.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the '863 Patent, the technology addresses the limitations of conventional leach field systems that operate in oxygen-poor, anaerobic soil conditions deep below the surface (’271 Patent, col. 1:49-61).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent describes a system of three or more spaced-apart infiltrative channels, each wrapped in filter fabric and having upright infiltrative surfaces with a high aspect ratio. The system includes "spacing connectors" that connect adjacent channels to maintain a defined separation. A wastewater channel or dosing pipe traverses the channels to deliver effluent. This structured arrangement is designed to facilitate aerobic treatment in the soil between the infiltrative channels ('271 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:30-47).
  • Technical Importance: The use of defined spacing connectors provides a method for reliably constructing and installing a leach field with specific separations between treatment channels, which is critical for achieving the intended aerobic treatment performance ('271 Patent, col. 3:1-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 16 (Compl. ¶196-198, 208-210, 253, 262).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a system comprising:
    • A first, second, and third infiltrative channel, each spaced apart, wrapped in filter fabric, and having at least two upright infiltrative surfaces with a specified height to width aspect ratio.
    • A first spacing connector positioned between the first and second channels.
    • A second spacing connector positioned between the second and third channels.
    • A wastewater channel to dispense wastewater into the infiltrative channels.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶195, 207).

U.S. Patent No. 10,065,875 - "Wastewater Leaching System"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,065,875, "Wastewater Leaching System," issued September 4, 2018.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a wastewater system comprising a plurality of spaced-apart, high aspect ratio infiltrative channels. The system creates interstitial "aerobic treatment channels" comprising sand between a first and second infiltrative channel and a second and third infiltrative channel, with a dosing pipe providing wastewater (’875 Patent, col. 2:45-58).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 11, and 16 are asserted (Compl. ¶220-222; '875 Patent, Claims).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the arrangement of the Mantis system's Filter Support Modules, when installed with sand in the spaces between them as instructed by Defendant, creates the claimed system of infiltrative and treatment channels (Compl. ¶271, 280).

U.S. Patent No. 10,392,278 - "Leach Field System"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,392,278, "Leach Field System," issued August 27, 2019.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a leach field system comprising a set of three or more high aspect ratio channels and a distribution conduit. A key feature is the positioning of granular material (e.g., sand) between and, in some claims, above the high aspect ratio channels (’278 Patent, Abstract; Claim 4).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 22, and 33, and dependent claim 4 are asserted (Compl. ¶232-234, 244-246, 286, 302; '278 Patent, Claims).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Mantis systems as installed according to Defendant's instructions, which allegedly require positioning specified sand between the system's high aspect ratio channels (Compl. ¶287, 296, 303, 312).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Defendant Eljen’s "Mantis® wastewater systems," which include the "Current Connecticut Mantis Products" (Mantis 536-8, DW-100, DW-58), the "Current Mantis M5 Series," and predecessor versions referred to as "Prior Mantis Products" (Compl. ¶22, 25, 63, 81, 150).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Mantis systems are described as a "wastewater dispersal and disposal technology that applies clarified effluent to the native soil" (Compl. ¶24). The systems are sold as preassembled units, typically five feet in length, containing a series of "Filter Support Modules" (FSMs) mounted on one or two perforated "Support Distribution Pipes" (Compl. ¶31, 33, 38). Each FSM consists of a "cuspated core surrounded by Bio-Matt™ geotextile fabric" (Compl. ¶35). The complaint includes a detailed component diagram of the Mantis 536-8 system from Defendant's materials (Compl. ¶30, p. 7). This diagram identifies key components such as the "Filter Support Module," "Support Distribution Pipe," and "Bio-Matt™ Geotextile Fabric."
  • The systems are installed in trenches which are then backfilled with a "Specified Sand envelope" around the units, including in the spaces between the FSMs (Compl. ¶31, 39). The complaint alleges that Plaintiff and Defendant are direct competitors in the sale and manufacture of wastewater systems (Compl. ¶21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'863 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a system for wastewater comprising: a plurality of channels, each having a height to width aspect ratio in a range of as high as 96 and as low as 3... The accused Mantis systems include multiple Filter Support Modules (FSMs) which allegedly constitute the claimed "channels" and have the required high aspect ratio. For example, the Mantis 536-8 FSMs are 18" high and 4.5" wide. ¶33, 42 col. 9:30-44
where adjacent channels are separated along a majority of their length by two or more inches, The FSMs are separated by a space which is allegedly 3" or more. The "Current Mantis 536-8 System" has a 3" spacing between modules, and the "Current Mantis M5" has an 8" spacing. ¶42, 59, 73 col. 10:1-3
the separations comprising sand, or a granular material, or a void comprising the majority or all of the volume of the separation. Defendant's installation manuals instruct users to install the Mantis units in a trench with a "Specified Sand envelope," which includes filling the spaces between the FSMs with sand. A plan view from Defendant's manual illustrates this sand-filled separation. ¶39, 40, 60, 78, 97 col. 9:1-5
a first wastewater delivery conduit with wastewater egress openings... The Mantis systems include a perforated "Support Distribution Pipe" centered within the FSMs that provides internal distribution of septic tank effluent to the modules. ¶36, 38, 55 col. 9:22-29
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the infringing "system" is the product as sold by the Defendant, or the product as installed by a third party according to Defendant's instructions. The claim limitation requiring "separations comprising sand" appears to be met only after installation, raising potential questions of divided infringement. The complaint addresses this by pleading inducement and contributory infringement (Compl. Counts XVI-XVII).
    • Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the accused "Filter Support Modules" (FSMs) function as the claimed "channels" with "upright infiltrative surfaces." The court may need to determine if the structure and operation of an FSM, with its cuspated core and geotextile fabric, meets the technical requirements described and claimed in the patent.

'271 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first, second, and third, infiltrative channel, each of the three infiltrative channels spaced apart from each other, each of the three infiltrative channels wrapped in filter fabric, and having at least two upright infiltrative surfaces... The accused Mantis systems contain multiple FSMs, which allegedly are the claimed "infiltrative channels." The FSMs are described as being surrounded by a "Bio-Matt™ geotextile fabric" and are spaced apart from one another on the distribution pipe. ¶33, 35, 42, 54 col. 17:49-67
a first spacing connector positioned between the first infiltrative channel and the second infiltrative channel... The Mantis systems include "edge spacers" and/or "Module Spacers" that allegedly function as the claimed spacing connectors to maintain the separation between the FSMs. The complaint provides a photograph from Defendant's materials identifying "Edge spacers" on an assembled unit. ¶43, 62, 80, 103, 105, 129, 149 col. 18:10-24
a wastewater channel positioned to dispense wastewater... wherein the wastewater channel traverses no more than a portion of an upper boundary of each of the three infiltrative channels... The Support Distribution Pipe allegedly functions as the wastewater channel, delivering effluent to the FSMs. ¶36, 37, 55 col. 18:25-31
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Practitioners may focus on whether the accused "edge spacers" or "Module Spacers" meet the definition of a "spacing connector" as claimed. The patent claims a connector "positioned between" the channels, and the court may need to construe whether the accused spacers, which appear to run along the upper and lower corners of the assembled modules (Compl. ¶43, 80), satisfy this limitation.
    • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether the FSMs possess "upright infiltrative surfaces" as that term is used in the patent. The analysis will likely compare the patent's description of how wastewater percolates through these surfaces with evidence of how effluent actually flows through the cuspated core and geotextile fabric of the accused FSMs.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'863 Patent, Claim 1: "separations comprising sand, or a granular material, or a void..."

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the accused Mantis system is sold as an assembly of modules with empty spaces (voids) between them. The "sand, or a granular material" is added by the installer in the field, per Defendant's instructions (Compl. ¶39, 97). The construction of this term will be central to determining whether the system as sold directly infringes, or if infringement only occurs upon installation, shifting the focus to indirect infringement theories.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim's use of "or" suggests three alternative compositions for the separation: sand, any granular material, or a void. This could support an argument that the system as sold, with its void separations, meets one of the claimed alternatives.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly discusses the system in the context of being installed in the ground with backfill material. For instance, the abstract describes "backfilling...the volumes of adjacent high aspect ratio leaching channels." This context may support an interpretation that the "separation" is an element that is necessarily defined in its installed state, which includes the backfill material.

'271 Patent, Claim 1: "spacing connector"

  • Context and Importance: The complaint identifies the accused system's "edge spacers" and "Module Spacers" as the claimed "spacing connectors" (Compl. ¶43, 103). The definition of this term will determine if these components, which maintain the gap between FSMs, fall within the claim scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to narrowly define the structure of the "spacing connector," describing its function as being "configured to provide a spacing" (ʼ271 Patent, col. 18:10-15). This functional language may support a broad construction that covers any component that maintains the required spacing.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Dependent claim 4 states the connector is "a line," and dependent claim 5 states it is "secured and configured so as to inhibit lateral movement." Defendant may argue that these dependent claims suggest the independent claim term should not be so broad as to automatically include any component that creates a space, and that the accused "edge spacers," which frame the assembly, do not function as the claimed connectors "positioned between" the channels.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes multiple counts for induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents (Compl. Counts VIII-XVII). The allegations are based on Defendant's installation manuals, brochures, and website, which allegedly instruct installers and customers to install and use the Mantis systems in an infringing manner—specifically by backfilling the spaces between the FSMs with sand or granular material, thereby completing the claimed system (Compl. ¶255, 264, 287, 296). The complaint also alleges the Mantis components are especially made or adapted for this infringing use and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶259, 275, 291).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The complaint provides a detailed basis, alleging Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents and infringement, starting with notice of the pending application for the '863 Patent (Compl. ¶151-152). It further alleges a prior lawsuit on the '863 Patent (Compl. ¶159), continued correspondence after other patents issued (Compl. ¶166-167), and Defendant's own submission of prior art to the USPTO during prosecution of the '875 Patent (Compl. ¶165). These allegations suggest Defendant was aware of the patents, monitored Plaintiff's patent activity, and continued its allegedly infringing conduct despite this knowledge.

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

  • A core issue will be one of infringement locus: does direct infringement occur at the point of sale, or only after a third-party installer assembles the final system in the ground with sand backfill? The resolution will determine the viability of Plaintiff's direct infringement claims and shift significant focus to the evidence of Defendant's intent for the induced infringement claims.
  • A central claim construction dispute will be one of structural identity: do the accused "Filter Support Modules" and "edge spacers" of the Mantis system constitute the "high aspect ratio channels" and "spacing connectors" as those terms are defined by the patents? This will involve a technical comparison between the patented invention's components and the structure and function of the accused product's components.
  • Given the extensive history of interaction alleged in the complaint, a key question for damages will be one of willfulness: what was Defendant's state of mind regarding potential infringement, particularly after receiving notice, engaging in correspondence with Plaintiff, and participating in USPTO proceedings related to the asserted patents?