DCT
1:18-cv-01072
Ingevity Corp v. BASF Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ingevity Corporation (Delaware)
- Defendant: BASF Corporation (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Shaw Keller LLP
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01072, D. Del., 07/19/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the defendant, BASF Corporation, is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s EvapTrap XC automotive emission control systems infringe a patent related to multi-stage adsorbent canisters designed to reduce fuel vapor emissions.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns activated carbon systems in vehicles that capture gasoline vapors (volatile organic compounds, or VOCs) to prevent air pollution and comply with increasingly strict environmental regulations.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent, U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE38,844, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,540,815. The complaint alleges that BASF has cited the original '815 patent in its own patent applications, a fact that may be used to support allegations of knowledge for willful and indirect infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-11-21 | '844 Patent Priority Date |
| 2003-04-01 | Original U.S. Patent 6,540,815 Issue Date |
| 2005-10-25 | '844 Reissue Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-07-19 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE38,844 - "Method for Reducing Emissions From Evaporative Emissions Control Systems"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE38,844, "Method for Reducing Emissions From Evaporative Emissions Control Systems," issued October 25, 2005.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of "diurnal breathing losses" in vehicle emission control systems. This refers to the escape of hydrocarbon vapors from the residual fuel "heel" left on a canister's carbon adsorbent after an engine's purge cycle, which typically occurs when a vehicle is parked for several days and subject to temperature fluctuations ('844 Patent, col. 2:42-47).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system using multiple, distinct adsorbent stages to reduce these bleed emissions. A first, "fuel source-side" region uses a conventional high-capacity adsorbent to handle the main vapor load. A subsequent, "vent-side" region employs a specialized adsorbent with a "flat or flattened adsorption isotherm," meaning it has a lower capacity for high-concentration vapors but is very effective at trapping the low-concentration vapors that constitute bleed emissions ('844 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:43-52). This layered approach is intended to meet stricter emission standards without compromising overall system performance.
- Technical Importance: This technical approach allowed vehicle manufacturers to address new, more stringent regulations (such as California's LEV-II standards) targeting low-level "diurnal" emissions, a problem that standard high-capacity carbon canisters were not designed to solve effectively ('844 Patent, col. 2:48-55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 18, 31, and 43 (Compl. ¶17).
- Independent claim 1, a method claim, includes the essential elements of:
- Contacting fuel vapor with an "initial adsorbent volume" having an incremental adsorption capacity greater than 35 g n-butane/L between specified vapor concentrations.
- Contacting the vapor with "at least one subsequent adsorbent volume" having an incremental adsorption capacity of less than 35 g n-butane/L between the same vapor concentrations.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are BASF's "EvapTrap™ XC" and "New EvapTrap XC" emission control systems (Compl. ¶¶10, 11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the EvapTrap XC is a "hydrocarbon scrubber system" that functions as a "bleed trap" used either as part of or in conjunction with a vehicle's primary fuel vapor canister (Compl. ¶¶10-11). The complaint includes a diagram showing the "EvapTrap™ XC fine hydrocarbon trap" as a distinct component connected to a larger "Fuel vapor canister" (Compl. p. 3). The complaint further alleges that BASF and its customers are conducting "New EvapTrap XC Testing" in the United States, which involves operating emission control systems that incorporate the accused product (Compl. ¶11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
RE38,844 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for reducing fuel vapor emissions...comprising the steps of contacting the fuel vapor with an initial adsorbent volume having incremental adsorption capacity at 25° C. of greater than 35 g n-butane/L between vapor concentrations of 5 vol % and 50 vol % n-butane... | The complaint alleges that the "New EvapTrap XC Testing" involves fuel vapor canisters that contain this initial high-capacity adsorbent volume, which is necessary for the canisters to function correctly and meet U.S. emission standards. | ¶17 | col. 10:36-44 |
| ...and at least one subsequent adsorbent volume having an incremental adsorption capacity of less than 35 g n-butane/L between vapor concentrations of 5 vol % and 50 vol % n-butane. | The complaint alleges on information and belief that the "New EvapTrap XC" itself is the subsequent adsorbent volume and that it exhibits this specific, lower incremental adsorption capacity. | ¶17 | col. 10:40-44 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused system, which the complaint's visual evidence depicts as a separate "fine hydrocarbon trap" used "in conjunction with" a fuel vapor canister (Compl. p. 3), meets the claim requirement of an "initial" and "subsequent" volume. The structure of the claims may raise questions about whether a physically separate but connected component qualifies as a "subsequent adsorbent volume" in the manner claimed.
- Technical Questions: The infringement allegation for the second element rests on the assertion, made "upon information and belief," that the New EvapTrap XC has the specific numerical property of "less than 35 g n-butane/L" incremental adsorption capacity (Compl. ¶17). A key factual question will be what evidence, such as test data, supports this technical characterization of the accused product's performance.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "subsequent adsorbent volume"
Context and Importance: The infringement theory depends on casting the accused "New EvapTrap XC" product as this "subsequent adsorbent volume." Whether this term can be construed to cover a physically separate component connected to a main canister, as depicted in the complaint (Compl. p. 3), will likely be a central point of dispute.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims an embodiment where the initial and subsequent volumes "are located in separate canisters that are connected to permit sequential contact by the fuel vapor" ('844 Patent, col. 10:57-60, Claim 6). This language could support a construction where the "volumes" do not need to be housed in a single, unitary device.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's preferred embodiment describes the volumes as regions or layers within a primary canister body and a supplemental canister body ('844 Patent, col. 6:31-42; Fig. 2). This could support a narrower construction requiring a more integrated or co-located system than what might be inferred from the complaint's diagram.
The Term: "incremental adsorption capacity"
Context and Importance: This technical parameter and its specific numerical thresholds ("greater than 35 g" and "less than 35 g") form the bright line for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the entire infringement case hinges on whether the accused product and the canisters it is used with fall on opposite sides of this numerical line.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is defined with specificity within the claims themselves ("at 25° C. ... between vapor concentrations of 5 vol % and 50 vol % n-butane"), suggesting its plain and ordinary meaning is the technical definition provided ('844 Patent, Claim 1).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed examples of how this property is measured and presents a chart (Figure 3) comparing the performance of different materials ('844 Patent, col. 8, Table; Fig. 3). Parties may dispute the precise testing methodologies required to determine if a product meets the claimed thresholds, potentially arguing that only the methods disclosed in the patent are appropriate.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement by asserting that BASF provides the New EvapTrap XC to its customers and testing laboratories, knowing and intending for them to incorporate it into infringing systems for testing in the United States (Compl. ¶19). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the accused product is a material part of the invention, is not a staple article of commerce, and lacks substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶20).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that BASF deliberately copied Ingevity's commercial products and that BASF's own patents have repeatedly cited the original '815 patent, from which the asserted '844 patent was reissued, demonstrating knowledge of the patented technology (Compl. ¶23).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of "technical proof": what evidence will be presented to substantiate the claim, made on "information and belief," that BASF's New EvapTrap XC product in fact exhibits an "incremental adsorption capacity... of less than 35 g n-butane/L," the specific technical threshold required for infringement?
- A core issue will be one of "claim scope": can the patent's language for an "initial" and "subsequent adsorbent volume" be construed to cover a system comprising a primary canister and a physically separate, auxiliary "bleed trap," as the accused system is depicted in the complaint?
- A critical question for willfulness and enhanced damages will be one of "scienter": given the allegations that BASF cited the parent patent in its own portfolio, did BASF possess pre-suit knowledge of the patent and act with egregious or reckless disregard for Ingevity's patent rights, or can it establish a good-faith belief of non-infringement or invalidity?