DCT

1:18-cv-01683

Rein Tech Inc v. Mueller Systems LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01683, D. Del., 10/26/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s remote disconnect water meters infringe three patents related to water use monitoring, leak detection, and damage prevention systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns smart water meters capable of monitoring water consumption, detecting leaks, and communicating wirelessly with remote devices or central systems for conservation and damage prevention.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or licensing history. However, public records indicate that all three patents-in-suit have been subject to significant post-grant proceedings. U.S. Patent No. 8,347,427, U.S. Patent No. 9,297,150, and U.S. Patent No. 9,749,792 have each been subject to both ex parte reexamination and inter partes review (IPR). The IPR proceedings resulted in the cancellation of numerous claims across all three patents, a factor that may significantly narrow the scope of the present dispute.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-10-24 Earliest Priority Date for ’427 and ’150 Patents
2009-08-11 Earliest Priority Date for ’792 Patent
2009-XX-XX Plaintiff alleges conception of the technology (Compl. ¶8)
2010-10-10 Provisional Application No. 61/389,709 Filed (related to '427 Patent)
2012-11-26 Provisional Application No. 61/729,653 Filed (related to '150 Patent)
2013-01-08 U.S. Patent No. 8,347,427 Issued
2014-12-21 Provisional Application No. 62/095,024 Filed (related to '792 Patent)
2016-03-29 U.S. Patent No. 9,297,150 Issued
2017-08-29 U.S. Patent No. 9,749,792 Issued
2018-10-26 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,347,427 - "Water Use Monitoring Apparatus," Issued January 8, 2013 (’427 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that primary residential and commercial water meters are often in inconvenient locations for regular monitoring, provide only cumulative data without useful analytics, and cannot distinguish between indoor/outdoor or hot/cold water use, hindering conservation efforts (’427 Patent, col. 2:22-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a monitoring apparatus affixed to a building's water supply piping that continuously monitors water usage and can communicate this data wirelessly to one or more remote displays (’427 Patent, col. 3:6-14). This allows residents, building operators, or municipal agencies to conveniently view detailed water parameter data, such as volume and energy use, to encourage conservation and enable remote management (’427 Patent, FIG. 1; col. 3:15-34).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides granular, accessible water usage data directly to consumers and third parties, aiming to change behavior and improve resource management beyond what traditional, hard-to-access utility meters could offer (’427 Patent, col. 2:27-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶18). Public records show that an inter partes review cancelled claims 1-8, 13-16, and 18-20. The first surviving independent claim is Claim 12.
  • Independent Claim 12 (as an example of a surviving asserted claim):
    • A water parameter use and monitoring apparatus, comprising:
    • one or more highly sensitive water flow sensor including a wireless transceiver that designed to detect water leaking.
  • Plaintiff reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery progresses (Compl. ¶21).

U.S. Patent No. 9,297,150 - "Water Use Monitoring Apparatus and Water Damage Prevention System," Issued March 29, 2016 (’150 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the "staggering" financial losses caused by broken water pipes, particularly when a property is unoccupied or the owner is asleep, as leaks can go undetected and cause catastrophic damage (’150 Patent, col. 1:30-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a water damage prevention system featuring a remotely controllable base station with a shut-off valve installed in the main water line (’150 Patent, col. 2:1-11). A user can activate or deactivate the shut-off valve using a convenient remote controller, such as a wireless key fob, to interrupt the water supply when leaving the property, thus preventing damage from potential pipe failures (’150 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:18-24).
  • Technical Importance: The system provides a simple, user-friendly method for property owners to proactively mitigate the risk of water damage by making it easy to turn off the main water supply when the property is unsupervised (’150 Patent, col. 2:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶24).
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A building or structure water damage prevention system, comprising:
    • a remotely controllable base station with a water shut-off/on or water control mechanism interposed between a water line from a water main and a water supply for said building or structure;
    • said remotely controllable base station with said water shut-off/on mechanism being adapted to control the flow of water through said water supply to a residential home or industrial/commercial facility or building;
    • a wireless chain or key fob apparatus;
    • said remotely controllable base station including a recording compliance data means;
    • said key chain or key fob apparatus includes electronic circuitry to send a wireless signal to said remotely controllable base station to turn said water supply on and off, and
    • said key chain or key fob apparatus having the capability to receive a wireless electronic communication whereby said key chain or key fob apparatus includes an indicating means for determining an operational state or position of the shut-off/on mechanism.
  • Plaintiff reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery progresses (Compl. ¶27).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,749,792 - "Water Use Monitoring Apparatus," Issued August 29, 2017 (’792 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a water use monitoring apparatus affixed to water supply piping for on-demand or continuous monitoring of water and energy consumption (’792 Patent, Abstract). The system includes various sensors (e.g., temperature, flow, water quality) and communicates wirelessly with remote displays, cell phones, or similar devices for observation by a user or government agency (’792 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’792 Patent without further specification (Compl. ¶30).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's 420 Series Remote Disconnect Meters infringe the ’792 Patent (Compl. ¶14, ¶30).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are Defendant’s "420 Series Remote Disconnect Meters with remote application" (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality. It alleges that the products incorporate "infringing technology" and refers to Exhibits 4-7 as examples, but these exhibits were not included with the complaint provided for analysis (Compl. ¶16). No specific operational features of the accused meters are described.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges infringement of the ’427 Patent and the ’150 Patent but does not provide claim charts or specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to the accused products' features. Instead, it refers to external Exhibits 8 and 9, which were not available for this analysis (Compl. ¶18, ¶24). The complaint’s infringement theory is therefore presented only at a conclusory level.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: As the complaint lacks specific factual allegations of infringement, a primary point of contention will be evidentiary. The case will raise the question of what evidence Plaintiff can produce to demonstrate that the accused "420 Series Remote Disconnect Meters" practice each limitation of the asserted claims.
    • Scope Questions (Post-Grant Review): A threshold dispute may concern the impact of the inter partes review proceedings on the scope of Plaintiff's infringement case. With numerous claims cancelled, including independent claim 1 of the ’427 Patent, a central question is which surviving claims Plaintiff will assert and whether the accused products can be shown to infringe them.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’427 Patent (based on surviving Claim 12):
    • The Term: "highly sensitive water flow sensor... designed to detect water leaking"
    • Context and Importance: This term is qualitative and lacks a precise numerical value, making its scope a likely point of contention. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused product's sensor meets the claimed level of sensitivity and performs the specific function of leak detection, as opposed to general flow measurement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses monitoring for "leaking conditions" generally and mentions employing "optional high sensitive water flow sensor for detecting leaking conditions," but does not define a specific threshold for sensitivity (’427 Patent, col. 3:41-43). This lack of a specific definition may support a broader construction covering a range of sensor types.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes using these sensors to monitor "slow flow condition" through a supply line to determine if a leak exists, suggesting the sensor must be sensitive enough to detect low-volume, persistent flows that differ from normal usage patterns (’427 Patent, col. 29:21-26).
  • For the ’150 Patent (based on Claim 1):
    • The Term: "key fob apparatus"
    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because the accused infringement may involve remote control via a smartphone application or other device that is not a traditional physical key fob. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the claim scope is limited to the specific physical embodiment shown or can be construed more broadly.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the remote controller "preferably comprises a wireless key chain" but also mentions a "wireless or wired keyboard, or a wireless or wired apparatus that is incorporated within an alarm system or a garage opening system," suggesting "key fob" may be one of several exemplary, non-limiting controller types (’150 Patent, col. 2:19-24).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: FIG. 2 and the accompanying description detail a physical "key chain or key fob apparatus 220" with a housing and buttons, which could support an argument that the term should be limited to a device with this specific physical form factor (’150 Patent, FIG. 2; col. 6:66-col. 7:14).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all three patents-in-suit. It asserts that Defendant knowingly and intentionally induces infringement by its customers through the provision of "user manuals, instructions, and technical training and assistance" (Compl. ¶38, ¶47, ¶56).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. It alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the patents "since at least the date that Defendant was served with a copy of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶22, ¶28, ¶34). This allegation supports knowledge for potential enhanced damages based on post-suit conduct but does not allege pre-suit knowledge, which is the typical basis for a willfulness claim. The prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl., p. 11).

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

  • A threshold issue will be the viability of the infringement claims: given that inter partes review proceedings have resulted in the cancellation of numerous claims across all patents-in-suit, including the lead independent claim of the ’427 Patent, a central question is which of the remaining, often narrower, claims Plaintiff can assert and prove are infringed.
  • A key procedural and evidentiary question will be one of sufficiency of allegations and proof: what specific features of Defendant’s "420 Series Remote Disconnect Meters" will Plaintiff identify to meet each limitation of the surviving asserted claims, an issue for which the complaint provides no specific factual detail and instead relies on external exhibits not filed with the court.
  • The dispute may also center on definitional scope: for the claims that survive and are asserted, the case will likely turn on whether the court adopts a broad or narrow construction of key qualitative terms such as "highly sensitive water flow sensor" (’427 Patent) and structural terms like "key fob apparatus" (’150 Patent).