DCT

1:18-cv-01391

Ingevity Corporation

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01391, D. Del., 09/06/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant BASF Corporation is incorporated in Delaware and thus resides in the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s automotive hydrocarbon scrubber system infringes a patent related to multi-stage adsorbent technology for controlling fuel vapor emissions.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the reduction of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from vehicle fuel systems to comply with stringent environmental regulations.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had actual notice of the patent-in-suit at least as of a prior complaint filing on July 19, 2018. It further alleges that Defendant has cited the original patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,540,815) in its own patent prosecution, which may be used to support allegations of pre-suit knowledge.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-11-21 U.S. RE38,844 Patent Priority Date
2005-10-25 U.S. RE38,844 Patent Issue Date
2018-07-19 Date of prior complaint filing, alleged to establish notice
2018-09-06 Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE38,844 (“Method for Reducing Emissions From Evaporative Emissions Control Systems”), issued October 25, 2005. Hereinafter, the “'844 Patent.”
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, increasingly strict environmental regulations required reducing "diurnal breathing loss" (DBL) emissions from vehicle fuel vapor canisters. This problem arises from the residual hydrocarbon "heel" left on a canister's activated carbon adsorbent after a regeneration (purge) cycle, which can escape when a parked vehicle experiences temperature changes (’844 Patent, col. 2:42-49). Conventional single-stage, high-capacity carbon systems struggled to meet new low-emission targets (’844 Patent, col. 2:56-60).
    • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a multi-stage adsorbent system to solve this problem. A primary, "fuel source-side" region uses a traditional high-capacity adsorbent to capture the bulk of fuel vapors. This is followed by a "vent-side" region containing a second, different adsorbent. This subsequent adsorbent is specifically designed to have a "flat or flattened adsorption isotherm," meaning it has a relatively low capacity for adsorbing high-concentration vapors but is very effective at capturing the low-concentration vapors that constitute the residual heel (’844 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:31-44). This two-stage approach is intended to reduce DBL emissions without significantly compromising the overall fuel vapor working capacity of the system (’844 Patent, col. 4:10-14).
    • Technical Importance: This design provided a method to meet next-generation PZEV and LEV-II emission standards, which targeted the small but persistent DBL emissions that prior systems could not effectively control (’844 Patent, col. 2:49-55).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 18 (methods), 31, and 43 (systems) (Compl. ¶19).
    • Independent Claim 1 (method) includes the essential elements:
      • Contacting fuel vapor with an initial adsorbent volume having an incremental adsorption capacity of 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 specified vapor concentrations.
    • Independent Claim 31 (system) includes the essential elements:
      • A canister containing an initial volume of fuel vapor adsorbent material and a subsequent volume of adsorbent material.
      • The initial volume is characterized by an incremental adsorption capacity of greater than 35 g n-butane/L.
      • The subsequent volume is characterized by an incremental adsorption capacity of less than 35 g n-butane/L.
    • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "New EvapTrap XC" system (Compl. ¶13).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the EvapTrap XC is a "hydrocarbon scrubber system that adsorbs gasoline vapor emissions" (Compl. ¶12). It is described as a "bleed trap that can be used as part of, or in conjunction with, a fuel vapor canister" (Compl. ¶13). A diagram illustrates the accused "EvapTrap™ XC fine hydrocarbon trap" as a component attached to a larger "Fuel vapor canister" (Compl. p. 4). The complaint alleges that the accused system is being manufactured, marketed, and tested for use in automobiles (Compl. ¶¶12-13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

  • Claim Chart Summary: The following table summarizes the infringement allegations for the system described in independent claim 31, based on the complaint's narrative.
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 31) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
In an evaporative emissions control system... a canister containing an initial volume of fuel vapor adsorbent material... and... a subsequent volume of adsorbent within a second region of the canister... The "New EvapTrap XC Testing" is alleged to involve automobiles with fuel vapor canisters (the initial volume) that contain or are used in conjunction with the "New EvapTrap XC" (the subsequent volume) (Compl. ¶19). The diagram provided suggests the accused product is an auxiliary trap connected to a main canister (Compl. p. 4). ¶19 col. 12:31-41
wherein the initial volume of vapor adsorbent... is characterized by an 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 fuel vapor canisters used in the accused systems must have an incremental adsorption capacity greater than 35 g/L to function correctly and comply with U.S. emission standards (Compl. ¶19). ¶19 col. 12:48-54
the improvement wherein at least one subsequent volume of vapor adsorbent material... is characterized by an incremental adsorption capacity at 25° C. of less than 35 g n-butane/L between vapor concentrations of 5 vol % and 50 vol % n-butane. The complaint alleges, upon information and belief, that the New EvapTrap XC product itself exhibits an incremental adsorption capacity of less than 35 g/L, as required by the claim (Compl. ¶19). ¶19 col. 12:65-col. 13:10
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Question: A potential dispute concerns the scope of the term "canister." The claims recite an "initial volume" and a "subsequent volume" within a "canister." The accused system appears to be a separate "bleed trap" used "in conjunction with" a main fuel vapor canister. The case may turn on whether the claimed "canister" can be construed to cover a multi-component assembly of separate but fluidly connected housings, or if it requires a single, unitary housing containing both adsorbent volumes.
    • Technical Question: The complaint's allegations regarding the specific incremental adsorption capacities of the accused system's components are based on "information and belief." A central evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate through testing or discovery that the materials used in the main canister and in the New EvapTrap XC, respectively, actually meet the specific ">35 g/L" and "<35 g/L" performance thresholds recited in the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "canister"
  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical to determining the scope of the system claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether a system composed of two physically separate units (a main canister and an add-on scrubber) can literally infringe a claim that recites both adsorbent volumes being contained in "a canister."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses an embodiment in Figure 2 that includes a "primary canister body 1" and a separate "supplemental canister body 12" connected by a "connecting hose 13" (’844 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 8:36-42). This disclosure of a multi-body system may support an interpretation where "a canister" refers to the overall emission control system, not necessarily a single physical housing.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain and ordinary meaning of "a canister" may imply a single container. Further, the embodiment in Figure 1 depicts a single canister body 1 that includes a "dividing wall 3" to separate adsorbent materials, which could support a more limited construction requiring a single, internally-divided housing (’844 Patent, Fig. 1).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement, stating that BASF provides the New EvapTrap XC to customers (e.g., automotive companies and testing labs) with the specific intent to encourage them to incorporate it into infringing systems and to perform infringing testing (Compl. ¶21). Contributory infringement is also alleged, based on the New EvapTrap XC being a material component especially made for an infringing use and not being a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶22).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges knowledge based on a prior complaint filed on July 19, 2018, and on BASF’s own patents having cited the original ’815 patent during prosecution. It also includes an allegation that BASF "deliberately copied the physical design of Ingevity products" (Compl. ¶25).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "canister" in claim 31, which recites both initial and subsequent adsorbent volumes, be construed to read on an assembly of two physically separate components—a primary fuel vapor canister and an auxiliary "scrubber" unit—as seemingly embodied by the accused system?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical performance: can Plaintiff produce sufficient factual evidence, likely through expert testing, to prove that the respective materials in Defendant's system meet the precise numerical thresholds for "incremental adsorption capacity" (>35 g/L and <35 g/L) that define the patented invention?