DCT
1:17-cv-01720
Presby Patent Trust v. Infiltrator Water Tech LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Presby Patent Trust (New Hampshire)
- Defendant: Infiltrator Water Technologies, LLC and Infiltrator Systems, Inc. (Connecticut)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Perkins Olson, PA.
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01720, D. Me., 02/22/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Maine because Defendant, through distributors or otherwise, has sold and/or caused the installation and use of allegedly infringing products within the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wastewater treatment and dispersal products infringe patents related to layered fluid conduits used for processing septic effluent.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns apparatuses and methods for filtering suspended solids from septic system wastewater using multi-layered conduits to prevent clogging of leach fields.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant had pre-suit actual notice of U.S. Patent No. 8,815,094 as of December 22, 2014. The complaint also alleges Defendant had knowledge of the published patent applications that led to both patents-in-suit, which may support allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-05-24 | Earliest Priority Date for ’094 and ’604 Patents |
| 2013-05-02 | ’094 Patent application published as '392 Publication |
| 2014-08-26 | U.S. Patent No. 8,815,094 Issued |
| 2014-12-22 | Alleged date Defendant received actual notice of ’094 Patent |
| 2016-01-21 | ’604 Patent application published as '589 Publication |
| 2017-01-31 | U.S. Patent No. 9,556,604 Issued |
| 2017-02-22 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,815,094 - Fluid Conduit with Layered and Partial Covering Material Thereon (Issued Aug. 26, 2014)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the problem of suspended solids, such as grease, lint, and fuzz, in septic tank effluent. These solids can pass through the tank and clog the subsequent leach system, reducing its effectiveness and lifespan (’094 Patent, col. 2:22-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for treating effluent using a multi-layered conduit. A perforated pipe is wrapped with at least one "coarse layer" and an outer "fabric layer" (’094 Patent, Abstract). As effluent flows from the pipe through these successive layers, particulates are separated by size, and different layers can be designed to facilitate different types of biological or chemical breakdown, improving overall treatment efficiency and system longevity (’094 Patent, col. 7:6-18; col. 12:3-8).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for progressive, multi-stage filtration and treatment within the conduit itself, aiming to enhance performance and extend the life of drainage systems over then-current single-layer filters (’094 Patent, col. 7:25-35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 8-12, with claim 8 being the sole independent claim asserted (Compl. ¶27).
- Independent Claim 8 is a method claim with the following essential steps:
- providing a substantially cylindrical conduit having an outside and comprising apertures, at least one coarse layer partially surrounding the outside of the conduit, and a fabric layer positioned outside of the at least one coarse layer;
- introducing the effluent into the conduit;
- flowing the effluent through the at least one coarse layer;
- flowing the effluent through the fabric layer; and
- separating particulates in the effluent by size.
- The complaint notes that dependent claims 9-12 are also asserted (Compl. ¶11).
U.S. Patent No. 9,556,604 - Liquid Waste Treatment Apparatus (Issued Jan. 31, 2017)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to its parent, this patent addresses the issue of suspended solids from septic tanks degrading the performance of leach fields (’604 Patent, col. 1:21-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus comprising a specific multi-layer arrangement around a perforated conduit. It claims a structure with a conduit, a surrounding plastic mesh, a first coarse layer, a first fabric layer, a second fabric layer, and a second coarse layer positioned between the two fabric layers, with this second coarse layer only "partially covering" the conduit's circumference (’604 Patent, col. 11:30-47). This configuration is designed to create a specific flow path and staging area for biological treatment, where effluent first saturates a lower layer before overflowing into subsequent outer layers (’604 Patent, col. 9:1-12).
- Technical Importance: The claimed apparatus provides a specific physical structure intended to force a staged treatment process, enhancing bacterial growth and protecting outer layers from premature clogging, thereby improving performance speed and quality over prior art methods (’604 Patent, col. 8:50-59).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-13, with claims 1, 9, and 12 being independent (Compl. ¶29).
- Independent Claim 1 is a system claim comprising:
- a conduit constructed and arranged to be in fluid communication with a septic system... with perforations...;
- a tubular plastic mesh surrounding the conduit;
- a first coarse layer surrounded by the plastic mesh;
- a first fabric layer outside the plastic mesh;
- a second fabric layer positioned outside the first fabric layer; and
- a second coarse layer concentrically arranged with the first coarse layer, positioned between the first fabric and second fabric layers, and "partially covering the circumference of the conduit."
- Independent Claim 9 recites an apparatus with a conduit, a first fabric layer, and a second fabric layer separated by a "layer of coarse material."
- Independent Claim 12 recites an apparatus where a first fabric layer and a second fabric layer with a lesser coarseness are separated by a "layer of coarse material."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2-8, 10-11, and 13 (Compl. ¶19).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused product is the "Infiltrator Advanced Treatment Leachfield" or "Infiltrator ATL" system (Compl. ¶20).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint alleges the ATL is a "wastewater treatment and dispersal product for use in septic systems" (Compl. ¶20). It is advertised as a "proprietary geotextile/media multi-layer treatment system" (Compl. ¶21).
- Based on the complaint, the ATL product's structure includes a four-inch perforated pipe, surrounded by a "large diameter synthetic aggregate" which is in turn surrounded by a plastic mesh. On top of the mesh are two fabric layers, which are used to form "pockets containing small diameter synthetic aggregate" that partially cover the pipe's circumference (Compl. ¶22).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’094 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide an element-by-element analysis for the asserted method claims of the ’094 Patent. It alleges that the manufacture, use, and sale of the ATL System infringes claims 8-12 (Compl. ¶27). An infringement theory can be inferred from the structural allegations made against the ATL product in connection with the ’604 Patent.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a substantially cylindrical conduit having an outside and comprising apertures... | The ATL system is alleged to be provided with a "four-inch in diameter perforated pipe" for use in a septic system. | ¶22a | col. 1:65-67 |
| ...at least one coarse layer partially surrounding the outside of the conduit... | The ATL system is alleged to contain "pockets containing small diameter synthetic aggregate which partially covers the circumference of the pipe." This aggregate may be alleged to be the "coarse layer." | ¶22c | col. 1:67-2:1 |
| ...and a fabric layer positioned outside of the at least one coarse layer | The ATL system is alleged to have two fabric layers, which are positioned outside the alleged coarse aggregate layer. | ¶22c | col. 2:1-2 |
| introducing the effluent into the conduit | The ATL system is sold for use in septic systems, where effluent is introduced into the conduit as part of its normal operation. | ¶¶20, 24 | col. 12:3-4 |
| flowing the effluent through the at least one coarse layer | In operation, effluent flowing out of the perforated pipe would flow through the surrounding layers, including the alleged coarse aggregate layer. | ¶¶22, 24 | col. 12:5-6 |
| flowing the effluent through the fabric layer | In operation, effluent would subsequently flow through the outer fabric layers after passing through the aggregate. | ¶¶22, 24 | col. 12:6-7 |
| separating particulates in the effluent by size | The complaint alleges the ATL system is used to "process effluent," and the layered structure is alleged to perform this function. | ¶24 | col. 12:7-8 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A key question will be whether the "synthetic aggregate" in the ATL product functions as the claimed "coarse layer" and whether the overall operation of the ATL apparatus inherently performs the step of "separating particulates in the effluent by size" as required by the method claim.
- Scope Questions: The dispute may center on whether the term "coarse layer," which the patent often describes as fibrous material, can be construed to read on the "synthetic aggregate" alleged to be in the ATL product.
’604 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a conduit constructed and arranged to be in fluid communication with a septic system, the conduit having a... side wall with perforations... | The ATL product is alleged to comprise a "four-inch in diameter perforated pipe." | ¶22a | col. 1:65-67 |
| a tubular plastic mesh surrounding the conduit | The ATL product is alleged to have a "plastic mesh that surrounds the perforated pipe." | ¶22b | col. 4:18 |
| a first coarse layer surrounded by the plastic mesh | The ATL product is alleged to include "Large diameter synthetic aggregate surrounded by a plastic mesh." | ¶22b | col. 3:5-10 |
| a first fabric layer outside the plastic mesh | The ATL product allegedly "utilizes two more fabric layers. The first layer... is affixed to a second fabric layer." This first layer is described as being "outside the plastic mesh." | ¶22c | col. 3:5-10 |
| a second fabric layer positioned outside the first fabric layer | A second fabric layer is alleged to be positioned outside the first. | ¶22c | col. 3:5-10 |
| a second coarse layer... positioned between the first fabric layer and the second fabric layer, the second coarse layer partially covering the circumference of the conduit | The two fabric layers are allegedly "used to form pockets containing small diameter synthetic aggregate which partially covers the circumference of the pipe." This aggregate is alleged to be the second coarse layer. | ¶22c | col. 3:5-10 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the accused structure—allegedly having aggregate "pockets" formed by two fabric layers—meets the claim limitation of a "second coarse layer positioned between the first fabric layer and the second fabric layer." The physical arrangement and construction will be critical.
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused "synthetic aggregate" constitutes a "coarse layer" as that term is used in the patent. Further, there may be a dispute over whether the accused product's structure meets the "concentrically arranged" limitation recited in claim 1.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term:
"coarse layer"(appears in both patents)- Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the structure of the claimed invention in both the apparatus and method claims. The defendant’s product is alleged to use "synthetic aggregate" (Compl. ¶22), and the case may turn on whether this material falls within the scope of "coarse layer."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes this element in functional terms, stating it can be a "coarse, random fiber layer" or a "plastic grid mesh" (’094 Patent, col. 4:15-18), suggesting it is not limited to one specific material but to materials that provide spacing and permit flow.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Many specific embodiments and figures describe and depict the coarse layer as an "unstructured assemblage of fibers" or "random fibers," which could support an argument that the term is limited to fibrous materials and does not encompass packed aggregates (’094 Patent, col. 4:7-9, FIG. 1).
The Term:
"partially surrounding"/"partially covering"(appears in both patents)- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the incomplete wrapping of the conduit by a layer, which is critical to the claimed overflow mechanism. The complaint alleges the ATL product's "pockets" of aggregate "partially cover" the pipe (Compl. ¶22c). Whether this arrangement is equivalent to the patent's teaching will be a key issue.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a degree or configuration of partial coverage, potentially covering any arrangement that is less than a full 360-degree wrap.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures consistently show this partial layer as a single, continuous segment covering the lower portion of the conduit to create a distinct liquid level and overflow path (’094 Patent, col. 9:1-5; FIG. 4). This may support a narrower construction that would not read on an arrangement of multiple, separate "pockets."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant provides instructions on how to install and use the ATL system in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶36, 37). It also alleges contributory infringement by claiming the ATL system has no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶28, 30).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit conduct. The complaint alleges Defendant had actual notice of the ’094 Patent as early as December 2014 (Compl. ¶31). It further alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the published applications for both patents and "took deliberate actions to avoid learning of the ‘094 and ‘604 patents’ existence," which suggests a claim of willful blindness (Compl. ¶¶33, 34, 40).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term
"coarse layer,"which the patents often describe in the context of fibrous materials, be construed to cover the "synthetic aggregate" allegedly used in the accused ATL product? The outcome of this construction will significantly impact the infringement analysis for both patents. - A second core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Does the accused ATL product's alleged use of aggregate-filled "pockets" formed by fabric layers meet the specific positional limitations of the claims, such as a layer being
"positioned between"two other layers and"partially covering"the conduit in the manner disclosed in the patents? - A key question for damages will be one of culpability and knowledge: The complaint makes specific allegations of pre-suit notice and knowledge of the patent applications. A central factual dispute will likely be establishing the timing and extent of Defendant's knowledge, which will be determinative for the claims of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages.