DCT
3:24-cv-00513
Ultratech Intl Inc v. Absorbent Specialty Products LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: UltraTech International, Inc. (Florida)
- Defendant: Absorbent Specialty Products, LLC (Rhode Island)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lippes & Bryan, P.A.
- Case Identification: 3:24-cv-00513, M.D. Fla., 05/20/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts business in the district and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim, including threats of litigation, occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "Ultra-Flood Stopper" products do not infringe Defendant’s patent related to self-expanding water barriers.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns water-activated, absorbent barriers, often called "sandless sandbags," used for consumer and industrial flood control.
- Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by email correspondence on May 14, 2024, in which Defendant accused Plaintiff and its distributors of infringing the patent-in-suit and threatened litigation. The complaint also notes that the feature Plaintiff believes makes its product non-infringing is the subject of a separate patent application filed by Plaintiff.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-02-08 | U.S. Patent No. 9,297,134 Priority Date |
| 2016-03-29 | U.S. Patent No. 9,297,134 Issue Date |
| 2024-05-14 | Defendant allegedly accuses Plaintiff of infringement |
| 2024-05-20 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,297,134 - "Self-Expanding Barrier For Control Of Surface Water Flow"
Issued March 29, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the recurring problem of flooding and notes that traditional sandbags are labor-intensive, difficult to transport, and often unavailable in emergencies. The goal is a lightweight, compact, and easily activated alternative (’134 Patent, col. 1:19-29).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a water-activated barrier comprising a water-permeable sleeve containing a super-absorbent substance. The key innovation is a structural design intended to improve stability. The sleeve is divided by a lengthwise fastening (e.g., stitching) into two sections: a large front lobe and a smaller rear lobe. The absorbent material is contained in "at least one sheet" that is physically "captured" by this central fastening, which allocates a larger portion of the absorbent to the front lobe and a smaller portion to the rear lobe (’134 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:41-44). When the barrier absorbs water, this configuration is designed to create a stable, D-shaped structure where the rear lobe acts as an anchor to resist the rolling force of the dammed water (’134 Patent, col. 2:60-67).
- Technical Importance: By creating a dual-lobe structure with a specific weight and volume distribution, the design aims to provide a more stable barrier against lateral water pressure compared to simple, single-tube absorbent booms (’134 Patent, col. 2:55-67).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of independent claims 1 and 13 (Compl. ¶18).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A barrier containing a water absorbent substance that swells when wet.
- A water-permeable sleeve.
- A "first fastening means" running lengthwise that divides the sleeve into a front lobe and a rear lobe.
- "at least one sheet comprised of said water absorbent substance captured within the sleeve by said first fastening means," with a larger portion in the front lobe and a smaller portion in the rear lobe.
- A resulting structure where the swelled front lobe has a substantially larger volume than the rear lobe.
- Independent claim 13 adds further limitations, specifying that the swelled front lobe has a volume of 60-90% of the total, constitutes 80-90% of the barrier's weight, and has a D-shaped cross-section (Compl. ¶20).
- The complaint seeks judgment on "one or more claims," implicitly reserving the right to contest any dependent claims that may be asserted (Compl. ¶31).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Ultra-Flood Stopper" product line (Compl. ¶4).
Functionality and Market Context
- The product is described as a "sandless sandbag" used to create water barriers for flood protection (Compl. ¶4).
- The complaint alleges it directly competes with Defendant's "Quick Dam" product (Compl. ¶6).
- The complaint’s core non-infringement argument rests on the product's specific construction. It alleges that in the Ultra-Flood Stopper, "the water absorbent substance is adhered directly onto the interior wall of the sleeve itself" (Compl. ¶24). It further alleges that because of this construction, there is "no sheet member present in the interior of the product" that is captured by the fastening means, a feature Plaintiff claims is "unique and revolutionary" and the subject of its own pending patent application (Compl. ¶24).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint is for declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes Plaintiff’s non-infringement theory for the key disputed element of Claim 1.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Elements conceded for purposes of argument: a barrier, a water-permeable sleeve, and a first fastening means creating a front and rear lobe] | [Plaintiff alleges its product possesses these features] | ¶24 | col. 14:7-28 |
| at least one sheet comprised of said water absorbent substance captured within the sleeve by said first fastening means, the sheet having a first fractional portion extending into the interior cavity of the front lobe and a second smaller fractional portion extending into the interior cavity of the rear lobe | Plaintiff alleges its product "completely lack[s]" this element. The complaint states the product has "no sheet member" containing the absorbent. Instead, the absorbent substance is "adhered directly onto the interior wall of the sleeve itself." | ¶24 | col. 8:39-44 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- The central dispute is whether the accused product’s construction meets the "sheet... captured" limitation. The complaint relies on a cross-sectional view from the patent, Figure 4, to illustrate the claimed structure it alleges is missing from its product. This figure shows a distinct sheet ("30") containing the absorbent, which is physically held between the front and rear lobes by the fastening means ("24") (Compl. ¶22).
- Scope Questions: A primary issue will be the interpretation of the claim term "sheet." Does the term require a physically separate and distinct component, as depicted in the patent's figures, or could a layer of absorbent material "adhered" to the sleeve's interior wall be considered a "sheet"? Similarly, what is the scope of "captured... by said first fastening means"? Does this require the physical trapping of a separate object, or could it be read more broadly to mean that the stitching simply dictates the location of the absorbent material?
- Technical Questions: Beyond claim construction, a key factual question will be the precise physical nature of the Ultra-Flood Stopper. The court will need to examine evidence to determine if the absorbent material, while "adhered," forms a distinct layer that functions as the claimed "sheet," or if it is integrated into the fabric of the sleeve in a fundamentally different way.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "at least one sheet comprised of said water absorbent substance"
Context and Importance: This term is dispositive for the non-infringement theory advanced in the complaint. Plaintiff’s case is built on the argument that its product lacks this "sheet." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely resolve the question of literal infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent holder may argue that a layer of material can be considered a "sheet," even if adhered. The specification mentions that the absorbent can be "integrated with another substance to form a composite sheet," which could suggest a more flexible definition than a simple, loose insert (’134 Patent, col. 8:51-53).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently illustrates the "sheet" as a distinct element ("30") separate from the sleeve ("32"), as shown in Figure 4. The specification states that "one or more layers of sheet 30 are positioned within an interior cavity of the sleeve," and that these sheets are "captured in place by lengthwise fastening 24," language that suggests a separate, mobile component being secured (’134 Patent, col. 8:41-44).
The Term: "captured within the sleeve by said first fastening means"
Context and Importance: This term is inextricably linked to "sheet" and is central to the dispute. Plaintiff contends its adhered absorbent is not "captured" by stitching.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent holder could argue that any structure where the stitching controls the distribution of the absorbent material between the lobes satisfies the functional meaning of "captured," as the stitching is what holds the absorbent in its designated location.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "captured" implies physically trapping or restraining an object. Language describing how the fastening means "captures" the sheet suggests an action performed on a separate component, which may not align with describing a substance already adhered to the sleeve wall (’134 Patent, col. 8:43-44).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that Plaintiff does not infringe either directly or indirectly (Compl. ¶31). However, it offers no specific factual allegations regarding indirect infringement, as its argument is premised on the complete absence of direct infringement by the accused product itself.
- Willful Infringement: Not applicable, as this is a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer and no counterclaim alleging willfulness has been filed.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim phrase "at least one sheet... captured... by said first fastening means," which is illustrated in the patent as a distinct, physically trapped component, be construed to cover a layer of absorbent material that is adhered directly to the interior wall of the accused product's sleeve?
- A second issue will be one of prosecution history limitation: the complaint suggests the "sheet" embodiment was the "only patentable subject matter" over the prior art (Compl. ¶28). A key question for the court will be whether the patentee made arguments or amendments during prosecution that would now estop it from asserting a claim scope broad enough to read on Plaintiff's design.
- A final question will be evidentiary and factual: what is the actual physical construction of the Ultra-Flood Stopper? Discovery and expert testimony will be required to determine if the "adhered" absorbent forms a distinct layer that is functionally equivalent to the claimed "sheet," or if it represents a fundamentally different and non-infringing technology.