DCT
1:22-cv-00720
General Electric Co v. LPP Combustion LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: General Electric Company (New York)
- Defendant: LPP Combustion, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00720, D. Del., 06/02/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff General Electric (GE) alleges that venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant LPP Combustion (LPP) is a Delaware limited liability company and therefore resides in the district for purposes of patent venue.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe, and that the claims are invalid, for three patents owned by Defendant related to systems and methods for managing fuel composition and vaporization for use in combustion turbines.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves modifying fuel systems for industrial gas turbines to enable the use of various fuel types, including liquid fuels, while maintaining stable combustion and controlling emissions.
- Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action follows a patent infringement lawsuit filed by LPP against GE in the Western District of Texas. GE states that it has moved to dismiss the Texas action for improper venue and filed this action in Delaware to resolve the dispute in what it alleges is a proper forum.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-10-10 | ’396 Patent Priority Date |
| 2004-01-12 | ’080 and ’924 Patents Priority Date |
| 2008-10-14 | ’080 Patent Issue Date |
| 2010-08-10 | ’396 Patent Issue Date |
| 2011-05-03 | ’924 Patent Issue Date |
| 2012-01-01 | LPP alleges GE had meetings with LPP regarding its technology |
| 2015-01-01 | LPP alleges GE began publishing on similar technology |
| 2020-03-31 | LPP alleges GE incorporated accused technology at CPV Fairview |
| 2021-12-22 | LPP files Original Infringement Complaint in W.D. Tex. |
| 2022-03-18 | LPP files First Amended Complaint in W.D. Tex. |
| 2022-06-02 | GE files Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in D. Del. |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,770,396 - “System for vaporization of liquid fuels for combustion and method of use”
Issued August 10, 2010
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of using higher hydrocarbon liquid fuels (like diesel or propane) in modern lean, premixed gas turbines, which are typically designed for natural gas. Using these alternative fuels can lead to "auto-ignition"—the spontaneous, premature combustion of the fuel/air mixture before it reaches the intended flame location, causing inefficiency and damage (Compl. ¶9; ’396 Patent, col. 2:1-9).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes vaporizing the liquid fuel by mixing it with a "diluent gas" that has a reduced oxygen concentration compared to ambient air. This inert or oxygen-poor environment suppresses auto-ignition, allowing the vaporized fuel to be safely delivered to the combustor, where it is then mixed with an oxygenated gas (like air) for proper combustion (’396 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:6-15).
- Technical Importance: This approach aims to provide greater fuel flexibility for power generation and other applications, allowing operators to switch from natural gas to more readily available or cost-effective liquid fuels without requiring a separate, less efficient diffusion-mode combustion system (’396 Patent, col. 2:45-53).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint states LPP asserted claims 1-18 in the underlying Texas action (Compl. ¶17). Independent claim 1 is representative and foundational.
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A method step of producing a fuel gas using a liquid fuel (comprising hydrocarbon molecules) and a diluent gas.
- Premixing the resulting fuel gas with a second, oxygen-containing gas to create a mixture upstream of a combustion zone.
- Combusting that mixture in the combustion zone.
- A key limitation: "wherein the diluent gas is inert and present in an amount such that reaction of the fuel gas upstream of the combustion zone is suppressed."
U.S. Patent No. 7,435,080 - “System and method for flame stabilization and control”
Issued October 14, 2008
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses performance inconsistencies in combustion devices that arise from variations in fuel quality or type, which can affect flame stability and emissions (’080 Patent, col. 2:54-61).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a control system that actively manages fuel composition. The system senses fuel characteristics (like composition or flow rate), compares them to a predefined acceptable range, and, if the fuel is outside that range, injects a calculated amount of an "additive" to modify the fuel's properties. The additive can be a "combustion enhancer" (e.g., hydrogen) to increase flame speed or a "combustion retardant" (e.g., nitrogen) to decrease it, thereby maintaining stable operation (’080 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-27).
- Technical Importance: This technology offers a real-time, automated method to compensate for fuel variability, aiming to ensure consistent and stable performance of sensitive combustion systems like lean-premixed gas turbines (’080 Patent, col. 3:15-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint states LPP asserted claims 1, 2, 4, 8–10, 12–14, 16, 19–20, and 22 in the underlying Texas action (Compl. ¶20).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A sensor for sensing a fuel characteristic indicative of a fuel combustion property.
- A processor for comparing the sensed characteristic to an acceptable range and generating an output if it falls outside.
- An additive feed, triggered by the processor's output, that feeds an additive to the fuel.
- The additive must be a "combustion enhancer or a combustion retardant depending on whether the sensed fuel characteristic is above or below the acceptable range."
U.S. Patent No. 7,934,924 - “System and method for flame stabilization and control”
Issued May 3, 2011
- Technology Synopsis: The ’924 patent shares a common specification with the ’080 Patent and is directed to a similar problem of maintaining combustion stability (Compl. ¶18). It claims a system that directly senses a combustion characteristic (e.g., flame flicker, pressure oscillations) rather than a fuel characteristic, and then uses that feedback to add a combustion enhancer or retardant to the fuel feed to correct any deviation from stable operation (’924 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:8-23).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint states LPP asserted claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 19 (Compl. ¶19).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that LPP has accused GE's gas turbine systems, specifically the CPV Fairview system, of infringing the ’924 Patent (Compl. ¶¶9-10).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is a "one-of-a-kind gas turbine with dual ethane and natural gas capabilities" installed at the Competitive Power Ventures power plant in Pennsylvania (“CPV Fairview”) (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused product as a gas turbine and associated software that allegedly vaporizes ethane and mixes the resulting vapor into a natural gas stream for combustion (Compl. ¶9).
- GE’s complaint frames the dispute as arising from LPP's allegation that this specific GE turbine system incorporates LPP's patented technology (Compl. ¶¶2, 10). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the operation of the CPV Fairview system.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and does not contain traditional infringement allegations or claim charts. The following tables summarize GE’s stated reasons for non-infringement, which reflect its interpretation of LPP’s infringement theory from the parallel Texas litigation.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’396 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality (GE's Position) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| producing a fuel gas using a liquid fuel comprising hydrocarbon molecules and a diluent gas | GE's complaint states that its accused system does not produce a fuel gas in the manner claimed by the patent. | ¶23 | col. 10:1-3 |
| wherein the diluent gas is inert | GE alleges its system does not use an "inert" diluent gas. It further contends that LPP’s alleged position—that reactive natural gas constitutes an "inert" gas—is technically unsound and renders the claim indefinite. | ¶¶23, 28 | col. 10:15-18 |
| present in an amount such that reaction of the fuel gas upstream of the combustion zone is suppressed | The complaint asserts that because its system does not use an inert diluent gas, it does not practice this limitation. | ¶23 | col. 10:16-18 |
’080 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality (GE's Position) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a sensor for sensing a sensed fuel characteristic... indicative of a fuel combustion property | GE’s complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element, but denies infringement of the claim as a whole. | ¶33 | col. 9:36-39 |
| a processor for comparing the sensed fuel characteristic to an acceptable range | GE’s complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element, but denies infringement of the claim as a whole. | ¶33 | col. 9:40-45 |
| an additive feed for feeding an additive to the fuel feed... wherein the additive includes a combustion enhancer or a combustion retardant depending on whether the sensed fuel characteristic is above or below the acceptable range | GE alleges that it does not make, use, or sell a system that performs this specific function of feeding an additive (enhancer or retardant) based on whether a sensed characteristic is above or below an acceptable range. | ¶33 | col. 9:46-52 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary dispute for the '396 Patent will be the definition of "inert." The complaint suggests LPP may argue that natural gas, when used as a diluent, meets this limitation, while GE argues "inert" requires a non-reactive gas (Compl. ¶¶23, 28). For the '080 and '924 Patents, the dispute centers on whether GE's system performs the specific feedback-and-correction functions recited in the claims.
- Technical Questions: A key technical question for the '396 Patent is what gas the accused GE system actually uses as a diluent and whether its properties can be factually characterized as "inert" in the context of suppressing auto-ignition. For the '080 and '924 Patents, the question is how the GE system actually controls fuel mixing and combustion, and whether that process involves sensing a characteristic, comparing it to a range, and injecting a corrective additive as claimed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’396 Patent:
- The Term: "inert"
- Context and Importance: This term appears central to the dispute. GE’s non-infringement defense, as well as its indefiniteness argument, rests on the assertion that its system does not use an "inert" gas and that LPP's contrary position is untenable (Compl. ¶¶23, 28). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could be dispositive of infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition. A party could argue that in the functional context of the claim ("present in an amount such that reaction... is suppressed"), any gas that achieves this suppressive effect, regardless of its own reactivity in other contexts, could be considered "inert" for the purpose of the claim.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly discusses using a "reduced oxygen" stream to "suppress auto-ignition" and notes that the added heat capacity of an "additional inert gas serves to reduce flame temperature" (’396 Patent, col. 3:3-5, col. 6:2-3). The specification also lists "N2 and CO2" as examples of components in a reduced-oxygen stream from an exhaust gas (’396 Patent, Fig. 3 legend). This language suggests a gas that is chemically non-reactive in the combustion environment, which would support a narrower definition excluding fuels like natural gas.
For the ’080 Patent:
- The Term: "additive" that "includes a combustion enhancer or a combustion retardant"
- Context and Importance: GE's non-infringement argument is that it does not sell a system that feeds such an additive based on a sensed characteristic (Compl. ¶33). GE also argues the claim is indefinite because one of ordinary skill would not be able to determine the scope of this term (Compl. ¶38). The definition will be critical to determining if what GE's system does (or does not do) falls within the claim scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any substance added to the primary fuel stream that has the effect of enhancing or retarding combustion qualifies. The specification states additives "can increase or decrease flame speed, flame temperature, or volumetric heat release rate" (’080 Patent, col. 7:22-25).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides specific examples of additives, listing "hydrogen" and "acetylene" as enhancers and "nitrogen," "carbon dioxide," and "steam" as retardants (’080 Patent, col. 6:28-34). A party could argue the term should be limited to these types of distinct, non-fuel chemical species added for the sole purpose of modification, as opposed to, for example, merely changing the ratio of two different fuel components.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: GE seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement for both induced and contributory infringement. The complaint asserts that because GE does not directly infringe, and because it has not "actively encouraged, instructed or contributed to any acts by its customers," it is not liable for indirect infringement of any of the asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶23, 33, 43).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not directly address willfulness, but it recounts LPP's allegations from the Texas case, which provide a potential basis for a willfulness claim by LPP. LPP alleges that GE was aware of LPP's patent portfolio and technology from meetings as early as 2012, years before the accused system was developed (Compl. ¶10). This allegation of pre-suit knowledge could be used by LPP to support a claim for willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action appears poised to center on fundamental questions of claim scope and technical operation, crystallized by GE’s pre-emptive filing. The key issues for the court will likely be:
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "inert" from the ’396 Patent, used in the specification to describe gases that suppress reaction, be construed to cover a reactive fuel gas, as GE alleges LPP's infringement theory requires? The resolution of this question may determine not only infringement but also the validity of the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
A second key issue will be one of functional operation: Do GE's accused turbines practice the specific, closed-loop control method claimed in the ’080 and ’924 Patents—sensing a characteristic, comparing it to a range, and injecting a corrective "additive"—or does GE’s system for managing dual-fuel combustion operate on a different, non-infringing principle?
Finally, the case presents a significant validity challenge beyond the infringement analysis. GE has put the patentability of the claims squarely at issue, alleging they are invalid under §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112 (Compl. ¶¶27-29, 37-39, 47-49). The court will have to address whether the claims are directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas or natural laws and whether they are adequately described and enabled.