Rein Tech Inc v. Xylem Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Rein Tech, Inc. (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Xylem, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Corcoran Law Firm; Devlin Law Firm LLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01684, D. Del., 10/26/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware based on Defendant's incorporation in that state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Sensus ally® water meters infringe four patents related to water use monitoring apparatus and systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns smart water meters capable of detailed usage monitoring, wireless data communication, and leak detection to support water conservation and prevent property damage.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,347,427, 9,297,150, and 9,494,480 on July 10, 2017, and of U.S. Patent No. 9,749,792 on February 7, 2018, via letters that invited a business relationship. These allegations of pre-suit knowledge form the basis for the willfulness claims.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,347,427 - "Water Use Monitoring Apparatus," issued January 8, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes conventional primary water meters as being inconveniently located for observation, offering only simple cumulative data, and lacking the capability to wirelessly transfer detailed usage information for conservation or leak detection purposes (’427 Patent, col. 1:21-col. 2:3).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a water use monitoring apparatus affixed to a building’s water supply piping. It continuously or on-demand monitors water usage and can communicate this data via a "first wire or wireless means" to a remote display for the building's occupant and via a "second optional wire or wireless communication" to governmental or municipal operators (’427 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:6-33). The system architecture, depicted in Figure 1, includes a base station (10) connected to the water supply, a local display for a resident (50), and potential communication links to offsite monitoring entities via cellular technology (44) (’427 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a system for detailed, real-time water consumption data, which can encourage conservation and enable rapid identification of leaks (’427 Patent, col. 1:24-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but does not identify any specific independent or dependent claims asserted from the ’427 Patent (Compl. ¶20).

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

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the technology described in the ’150 Patent.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but does not identify any specific independent or dependent claims asserted from the ’150 Patent (Compl. ¶27).

Multi-Patent Capsule: Additional Patents-in-Suit

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,494,480, "Water Use Monitoring Apparatus," issued November 15, 2016 (Compl. ¶11).

• Technology Synopsis: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to summarize the technology of the ’480 Patent beyond its title.

• Asserted Claims: Plaintiff alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶34).

• Accused Features: The Sensus ally® water meters are accused of infringing the ’480 Patent (Compl. ¶¶17, 34).

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,749,792, "Water Use Monitoring Apparatus," issued August 29, 2017 (Compl. ¶12).

• Technology Synopsis: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to summarize the technology of the ’792 Patent beyond its title.

• Asserted Claims: Plaintiff alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶41).

• Accused Features: The Sensus ally® water meters are accused of infringing the ’792 Patent (Compl. ¶¶17, 41).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused products are Xylem’s "Sensus ally® water meters" (Compl. ¶17).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as "water meters" and alleges they incorporate "infringing technology" (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical features or functionality of the accused products, instead referring to unprovided exhibits (Compl. ¶17). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit, but it does not specify which claims are asserted or provide claim charts in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶20, 27, 34, 41). The complaint states that infringement theories are detailed in Exhibits 13, 14, 15, and 16, which were not provided with the complaint document (Compl. ¶¶22, 29, 36, 43). Accordingly, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Because the complaint does not specify asserted claims or provide a technical theory of infringement, the fundamental point of contention is whether the accused Sensus ally® water meters practice any valid and asserted claim of the Patents-in-Suit.
  • Technical Questions: A primary technical question will be to map the features of the Sensus ally® water meters to the specific limitations of the claims that are ultimately asserted. The complaint's general allegation that the products are "water meters" provides no basis to analyze potential technical mismatches with claim elements such as the "first... wireless communication means" or "second optional... wireless communication" described in the ’427 Patent specification (’427 Patent, Abstract).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims for any of the Patents-in-Suit, which precludes an analysis of key claim terms that may be central to the dispute.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four patents (Compl. ¶¶46-81). The basis for inducement is the allegation that Defendant provides "user manuals, instructions, and technical training and assistance that induce directly infringing uses of the Accused Products by its customers" (Compl. ¶¶49, 58, 67, 76).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all direct and induced infringement counts. The allegations are based on Defendant’s alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents via letters sent on July 10, 2017, and February 7, 2018 (Compl. ¶¶15, 16, 24, 49, 54).

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

• A threshold issue may be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint, which makes general infringement allegations and relies entirely on unprovided exhibits for its technical substance, provide plausible grounds for relief as required by federal pleading standards?
• A central substantive question will be one of infringement: once specific claims are asserted, the case will turn on whether the accused Sensus ally® water meters incorporate the specific combination of elements recited in those claims, such as the multiple, distinct wireless communication pathways described in the ’427 patent specification.
• An important question for damages will be one of willfulness: did the Defendant’s alleged knowledge of the patents, based on pre-suit letters inviting a business relationship, make its continued alleged infringement objectively reckless, potentially justifying enhanced damages?