DCT
1:24-cv-00883
ControlTec LLC v. Anthony Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: ControlTec, LLC (Wyoming)
- Defendant: Anthony, Inc. (Delaware) and Hill Phoenix, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00883, D. Del., 07/26/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because both Defendants are incorporated in Delaware and are therefore deemed to reside within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ anti-sweat controllers for commercial refrigeration units infringe two patents related to systems and methods for proactively preventing condensation.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns energy-saving systems for commercial refrigerators that use sensors to anticipate condensation on glass doors and activate anti-sweat heaters only when necessary.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff ControlTec and Defendant Anthony had a business relationship circa 2005 for the development of anti-sweat-control devices. Plaintiff asserts this history provided Defendants with actual notice of the technology and the subsequently issued patents-in-suit, which may be relevant to the allegations of willful and indirect infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-03-01 | Priority Date for '181 and '847 Patents |
| c. 2005 | Alleged business dealings between ControlTec and Anthony |
| 2007-04-24 | U.S. Patent No. 7,207,181 Issues |
| 2008-09-09 | U.S. Patent No. 7,421,847 Issues |
| 2017-07-10 | Department of Energy regulation change cited by Plaintiff |
| c. 2018 | Alleged start of infringing activity by Defendants |
| 2024-07-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,207,181, "Refrigeration Unit Condensation Prevention" (Issued Apr. 24, 2007)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of condensation on commercial refrigeration display case doors, which can cause door damage and create safety hazards from runoff on floors ('181 Patent, col. 1:13-17). Conventional solutions involved running anti-sweat heaters continuously, which incurs high energy costs, or using reactive systems that only activate after condensation has already formed ('181 Patent, col. 1:17-34). Prior art systems that used dew-point calculations were noted to be prone to inaccuracies ('181 Patent, col. 1:56-64).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that proactively prevents condensation by using a combination of sensors to anticipate its formation ('181 Patent, col. 2:17-25). It employs a temperature sensing unit to monitor the refrigerator's frame temperature and a separate dew point sensing unit to monitor the ambient air temperature and humidity ('181 Patent, Abstract). A control unit uses this data to activate heaters before the frame temperature reaches the dew point, and the patent emphasizes the importance of thermally isolating the sensors in specially designed housings to ensure accurate readings ('181 Patent, col. 2:48-54).
- Technical Importance: This proactive approach, enabled by accurate sensor readings, was designed to provide more efficient energy usage compared to systems that run heaters continuously or only react after condensation appears ('181 Patent, col. 2:25-30).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶43).
- Claim 14 is a system claim comprising the following essential elements:
- A temperature sensing unit in contact with the display case frame to monitor case frame temperature;
- A dew point sensing unit on the display case to monitor ambient air temperature and relative humidity outside the display case; and
- Control means for receiving data from the sensing units and using it to anticipate condensation, thereby activating and deactivating a frame/door heater.
U.S. Patent No. 7,421,847, "Refrigeration Unit Condensation Prevention" (Issued Sep. 9, 2008)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The '847 Patent, a divisional of the '181 Patent, addresses the same technical problem of inefficient and reactive methods for preventing condensation on commercial refrigerator doors ('847 Patent, col. 1:21-42).
- The Patented Solution: Rather than claiming a system, this patent claims a method for condensation control. The method comprises the steps of placing a temperature sensor on the case frame, mounting a dew point sensor to monitor ambient conditions, and then utilizing the data from both to anticipate when condensation will form and responsively control the anti-sweat heater ('847 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-35). The technological principle of proactive, sensor-driven control is identical to that of the '181 Patent.
- Technical Importance: The claimed method provides a different form of intellectual property protection for the same energy-saving, proactive condensation control strategy detailed in the parent patent ('847 Patent, col. 2:20-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶53).
- Claim 8 is a method claim comprising the following essential steps:
- Placing a temperature sensing unit in contact with the display case frame to monitor its temperature;
- Mounting a dew point sensing unit on the display case to monitor ambient air temperature and relative humidity; and
- Utilizing the monitored data to anticipate condensation formation and accordingly activate and deactivate the heater.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are the "Anthony Energy Controllers" (e.g., part number 60-22715-0002), which are alleged to be standard equipment in Defendants' commercial refrigeration doors, including the 101, 401, Infinity, and Vista C series (Compl. ¶¶23, 25-27). The complaint collectively refers to these as the "Accused Anti-Sweat Controlled Products" (Compl. ¶27).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Anthony Energy Controller is an anti-sweat control unit that includes a frame temperature sensor, a dew point sensor, and a control unit (Compl. ¶¶29-31). A photograph provided in the complaint shows the components of the accused "Anthony Energy Controller," including the "Control Unit," a "Temperature Sensor cable and Sensor probe," and a "Dew Point Sensing Unit" (Compl. p. 8, ¶28). The controller is alleged to use data from these sensors to activate a heater when the frame temperature drops below a set point derived from the dew point, thereby preventing condensation (Compl. ¶31). A product features chart indicates that an "Energy Controller" is a standard component on numerous models of Defendants' refrigerator doors (Compl. p. 6). The complaint suggests that Defendants adopted this infringing design around the time the Department of Energy updated its energy efficiency regulations in 2017 (Compl. ¶¶24, 34-35).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'181 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a temperature sensing unit in contact with the display case frame to monitor case frame temperature | The accused controller allegedly includes a "frame temperature sensing unit" comprising a "Temperature Sensor cable and Sensor probe" adapted for monitoring the temperature of a display case door or frame. | ¶29 | col. 2:31-34 |
| a dew point sensing unit on the display case to monitor ambient air temperature and relative humidity outside the display case | The accused controller allegedly includes a "dew point sensing unit" adapted for monitoring ambient air temperature and relative humidity outside of the display case. | ¶30 | col. 2:35-38 |
| control means for receiving data from said sensing units and utilizing monitored case frame temperature, ambient air temperature and relative humidity to anticipate formation of condensation ... and activating and deactivating the frame/door heater responsive thereto | The accused controller allegedly includes a "control unit" that communicates with the sensing units and activates the heater when the monitored frame temperature drops below a preselected set point derived from the monitored ambient temperature and relative humidity. | ¶31 | col. 2:40-48 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The final element of claim 14 uses the term "control means," which invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The scope of this element is not limitless but is confined to the specific structure disclosed in the '181 Patent's specification for performing the recited function, and its equivalents. A central question for the court will be whether the circuitry and software logic within the accused "Control Unit" (Compl. ¶31) is structurally equivalent to the "Microprocessor 53" and associated "look up tables" disclosed in the patent ('181 Patent, col. 5:40-44; Fig. 13).
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused controller's algorithm truly performs the function of "anticipating" condensation as claimed. The complaint alleges it does so by activating the heater when the frame temperature "drops below a preselected set point above a dew point value" (Compl. ¶31). The infringement analysis will depend on evidence showing that the accused product operates according to this specific proactive logic.
'847 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| placing a temperature sensing unit in contact with the display case frame to monitor case frame temperature | Defendants are alleged to make, sell, and install products containing a "frame temperature sensing unit" with a sensor probe, which would be placed in contact with the frame during installation and use. | ¶¶29, 33 | col. 2:24-26 |
| mounting a dew point sensing unit on the display case to monitor ambient air temperature and relative humidity outside the display case | Defendants are alleged to make, sell, and install products containing a "dew point sensing unit," which would be mounted on the display case during installation and use. | ¶¶30, 33 | col. 2:27-30 |
| utilizing monitored case frame temperature, ambient air temperature and relative humidity to anticipate formation of condensation ... and activating and deactivating the frame/door heater responsive thereto | The normal operation of the accused controller is alleged to utilize data from the two sensors to anticipate condensation and control the heater, thereby performing this step. | ¶31 | col. 2:31-35 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: As a method claim, infringement requires performance of all steps. The direct infringement count (Count II) raises the question of who performs these steps. The analysis may focus on whether Defendants themselves perform all steps (e.g., during installation or testing) or whether the infringement theory relies more heavily on the indirect infringement claims (Counts V and VI), where Defendants are alleged to instruct their customers on how to perform the infringing method.
- Technical Questions: Similar to the '181 Patent, the dispute may center on the meaning of "utilizing" sensor data to "anticipate" condensation. The question is whether the accused controller's actual operation matches the proactive, comparative logic described in the patent, or if it functions in a technically distinct manner.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- Term: "control means" (from '181 Patent, Claim 14)
- Context and Importance: This term is drafted in means-plus-function format. Its construction is critical because it will define the specific hardware and/or software structures required to infringe this element of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will hinge on a structural comparison, not merely a functional one.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might point to the function, which is broadly recited as "receiving data ... and utilizing [it] to anticipate formation of condensation and activating and deactivating the frame/door heater" ('181 Patent, col. 10:52-58), to argue for a wider range of equivalents.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a corresponding structure including a "Microprocessor 53" that executes specific logic, such as comparing sensor inputs to "dew point lookup table[s]" ('181 Patent, Fig. 13; col. 9:5-9). A party will likely argue that the claim is limited to this specific microprocessor-and-table-based architecture and its structural equivalents.
- Term: "anticipate formation of condensation" (from '181 Patent, Claim 14 and '847 Patent, Claim 8)
- Context and Importance: This term captures the core of the asserted invention—its proactive nature. The definition will determine whether the accused controller's logic meets this key limitation, distinguishing it from purely reactive or timed systems.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Summary of the Invention states the purpose is to be "proactive in preventing condensation from forming by activating frame/door heaters before the dew point temperature ... is reached" ('181 Patent, col. 2:17-20). This could support a general meaning of acting before condensation is present.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims and specification link anticipation to a specific action: activating the heater when the "monitored display case door or frame temperature drops below a preselected set point above a dew point value" ('181 Patent, col. 2:41-45). This suggests "anticipate" is not just any predictive action, but one based on this specific comparison.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement claim is based on allegations that Defendants had knowledge of the patents since circa 2005 from prior business dealings and intentionally "instructing grocery store chains how to use the anti-sweat controller" in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶62-63, 73-74). The contributory infringement claim is based on the allegation that the accused controllers are "specially made and adapted" for this infringing use and are not a "staple article of commerce or suitable for any non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶¶69, 80).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is willful and intentional (Compl. ¶¶39, 48, 58). This allegation is primarily supported by the assertion of pre-suit knowledge stemming from the alleged 2005 business relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant Anthony (Compl. ¶36).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural equivalence: for the '181 patent, can the "control means" limitation, which is tied to the specific microprocessor and look-up table architecture disclosed in the patent, be proven to read on the hardware and software configuration of the accused "Anthony Energy Controller"?
- A second central issue will be one of functional operation: does the evidence show that the accused controller's algorithm performs the specific function of "anticipating" condensation by comparing the frame temperature to a set point calculated from the dew point, as taught by the patents, or does it operate on a different technical principle?
- Finally, a key question of fact will be the nature and extent of the alleged 2005 business relationship. The strength of the willfulness and indirect infringement claims will likely depend on what discovery reveals about this history and whether it is sufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the patented technology.