DCT

6:23-cv-00915

Slingshot Environmental LLC v. Sound Strategic Solutions LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00915, M.D. Fla., 07/26/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as all defendants reside in the judicial district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, former business partners, breached an operating agreement and are engaging in unfair competition by misappropriating and falsely advertising a patented process for recycling waste grease.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the chemical engineering process of recycling waste fats, oils, and grease (FOG) into a valuable commodity known as "brown grease," which serves as a feedstock for producing biodiesel.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges the parties formed a joint venture, Slingshot Environmental LLC, in April 2022 to commercialize the patented technology. It further alleges that Defendants improperly withdrew from the venture in April 2023, formed a competing entity (ROC Strategies), and began using Plaintiffs' intellectual property. A cease-and-desist letter was reportedly sent by Plaintiffs to Defendants on April 24, 2023, prior to the filing of this suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-04-03 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,449,470
2019-10-22 U.S. Patent No. 10,449,470 Issues
2022-04-30 Plaintiff Freeman5 and Defendant SSS form Slingshot LLC
2023-04-07 Defendant SSS sends letter purporting to withdraw from Slingshot
2023-04-10 Defendants Ludgates allegedly meet with investment firm to seek funding for new company ROC
2023-04-15 Defendant ROC Strategies, Inc. is incorporated
2023-04-24 Plaintiffs send cease-and-desist letter to Defendants
2023-07-26 Amended Complaint is filed

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

Although the complaint does not contain a formal count for patent infringement, it alleges that Defendants are using "processes... covered by the Patent" (Compl. ¶36). The analysis proceeds on the basis of these allegations.

U.S. Patent No. 10,449,470 - "Systems and Processes for Recycling Waste Grease" (Issued October 22, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the environmental and logistical challenges of disposing of "waste grease" from food service businesses. This waste is difficult for municipal treatment plants to process, and extracting its valuable components for reuse as "brown grease" (a biofuel feedstock) is complex. (ʼ470 Patent, col. 1:19-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-stage system and process for refining waste grease. The process involves heating the raw waste to make it flowable and then passing it through a series of separation chambers. Through controlled heating and a gravity-based decanting process—where the lighter oil phase flows "upwardly and over a liquid impermeable barrier" (ʼ470 Patent, col. 7:20-23)—the grease is progressively separated into oil, aqueous, and solid components. This sequential separation and heating purifies the oil into refined brown grease. (ʼ470 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:13-43).
  • Technical Importance: The process provides a method to convert a low-value, problematic waste stream into a higher-value, commercially useful biofuel feedstock, offering both an environmental and economic benefit. (ʼ470 Patent, col. 1:36-38).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted but makes general allegations regarding the patented process. Independent claims 1, 5, and 11 appear to be the broadest.
  • Independent Claim 1 (a process) includes the following essential elements:
    • Heating waste grease in a first separation chamber to render it flowable.
    • Separating the flowable waste into a primary oil phase, aqueous phase, and solid phase.
    • Decanting the primary oil phase by flowing it over a liquid impermeable barrier into a second separation chamber.
    • Separating the primary oil phase components into a secondary oil phase, aqueous phase, and solid phase.
    • Decanting the secondary oil phase over a different liquid impermeable barrier into a heating chamber.
    • Heating the secondary oil phase to separate it into a tertiary oil phase (refined brown grease), aqueous phase, and solid phase.
    • Extracting the tertiary oil phase.
    • Heating the remaining phases to form a quaternary oil phase.
    • Separately extracting the quaternary oil phase.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is not a physical product but the "brown grease extraction process and service" that Defendants Troy T. Ludgate, Anne E. Ludgate, and ROC Strategies, Inc. (ROC) allegedly seek to sell. (Compl. ¶43, ¶59).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that ROC was formed to "conduct the same type of business for which Slingshot was created—converting waste grease into brown grease" (Compl. ¶35). The functionality of the accused service is described in marketing materials, such as the "Ludgate Presentation" and the "ROC Website," which allegedly detail "processes created by the Freemans, including those covered by the Patent" (Compl. ¶36). The ROC website is said to claim use of "market-leading technology to efficiently reclaim a biofuel commodity from waste Fat, Oil and Grease (FOG)" (Compl. ¶38). The complaint alleges that these marketing materials are not only infringing but also false, as Defendants purportedly lack the facilities or expertise to perform the advertised services (Compl. ¶62).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart or detailed infringement allegations. The following table summarizes the infringement theory implied by the complaint's allegations that Defendants are using a process "covered by the Patent" (Compl. ¶36).

’470 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
heating waste grease in a first separation chamber... to render the waste grease flowable The complaint alleges Defendants are marketing a service to convert waste grease into brown grease (a process requiring heating) and are using Plaintiffs' patented process to do so. ¶35, ¶36 col. 7:11-14
separating components of the flowable waste grease... into a primary oil phase, aqueous phase, and solid phase The advertised service for processing FOG (fats, oils, and grease) into brown grease inherently requires separating oil from other components. The complaint alleges this is done via the patented method. ¶35, ¶38, ¶81.a col. 7:15-18
decanting the primary oil phase from the primary aqueous and solid phases by flowing the primary oil phase upwardly and over a liquid impermeable barrier and into a second separation chamber The complaint alleges Defendants misappropriated and are using the "patented brown grease extraction invention" (Compl. ¶81.a), which the patent describes as using a multi-chamber decanting process. The "Ludgate Presentation" (Ex. D) allegedly describes this process. ¶36, ¶37 col. 7:19-23
decanting the secondary oil phase... over a different liquid impermeable barrier and into a heating chamber As part of the allegedly misappropriated patented process, the service offered by Defendants would necessarily include the sequential decanting steps that define the invention. ¶36, ¶81.a col. 7:28-32
heating the secondary oil phase in the heating chamber to a temperature sufficient to separate components... into a tertiary oil phase The complaint alleges Defendants are advertising the "patented technology" (Compl. ¶81.c), which includes a final heating step to produce the refined brown grease product. The complaint references an allegedly near-identical presentation (Ex. D) to support this. ¶36, ¶37, ¶81.c col. 7:33-37
extracting the tertiary oil phase from the heating chamber The end goal of the service advertised by Defendants is to extract a "biofuel commodity" (Compl. ¶38), which corresponds to the patent's step of extracting the refined brown grease. ¶36, ¶38 col. 7:38-40
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Question: A central issue appears to be evidentiary. The complaint alleges Defendants are marketing a service using the patented process but also claims they lack the "facilities or expertise in the field" to actually provide it (Compl. ¶62, ¶79). A key question for the court will be whether Plaintiffs can produce evidence that Defendants have actually used, sold, or built an infringing process, or if the conduct is confined to false advertising and misappropriation of business plans.
    • Technical Question: The complaint's infringement theory rests heavily on the assertion that marketing materials like the "Ludgate Presentation" (Ex. D) describe the patented process (Compl. ¶36). The complaint alleges this presentation is "nearly identical" to Plaintiffs' own "Slingshot Presentation" (Ex. C). A point of contention may be whether these presentations contain sufficient technical detail to map directly onto every limitation of a patent claim, or if they are high-level descriptions that omit key claimed details.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "separation chamber"
    • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires a "first separation chamber," a "second separation chamber," and a "heating chamber." The structural definition of "chamber" will be critical to determining if a physical apparatus meets these limitations. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether different stages in a single, continuous-flow vessel constitute distinct "chambers."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the system's interior space as including "first and second separation chambers and a heating chamber" (ʼ470 Patent, col. 2:47-49), which could support an argument that any distinct functional region qualifies as a chamber.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent depicts the chambers as physically distinct sections within a larger housing, separated by vertical walls ("liquid impermeable barrier") (ʼ470 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 2:50-62). Specific embodiments further detail the chambers with unique angled bottoms and drains (ʼ470 Patent, Figs. 5-7), suggesting a more constrained, structural definition.
  • The Term: "decanting... by flowing... upwardly and over a liquid impermeable barrier"
    • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the mechanism for transferring the oil phase between chambers. The infringement analysis may turn on whether an accused process uses this specific gravity-based overflow method or another transfer mechanism, such as a pump.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "decant" generally means to pour liquid from one container to another. One could argue this covers any transfer over a barrier, regardless of the motive force.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently links this step to a passive process where adding volume causes the oil phase "to overflow the first overflow boundary" (ʼ470 Patent, col. 8:50-54). This language suggests a passive, gravity-driven system, which could support a narrower construction that excludes active transfer methods like pumping.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement. The core allegations focus on the direct actions of the named Defendants.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges a history of business dealings where Defendants were made aware of and given access to Plaintiffs' technology under an operating agreement (Compl. ¶13, ¶16, ¶27-28). It further alleges that after receiving a cease-and-desist letter on April 24, 2023, which would have provided explicit notice of Plaintiffs' rights, Defendants "persisted in their unfair competition" (Compl. ¶39-40). These allegations of pre-suit knowledge from a prior business relationship and continued conduct after receiving a cease-and-desist letter could support a finding of willfulness if infringement is ultimately proven.

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

  • A core issue will be one of evidence and actionability: can Plaintiffs demonstrate that Defendants have taken concrete steps to build, use, or sell an infringing process, or are the allegations limited to non-infringing (though potentially tortious) acts of misappropriating and falsely advertising business plans? The complaint itself raises this question by asserting Defendants lack the capability to perform the advertised services.
  • A key legal question is the nature of the dispute: is this fundamentally a patent infringement case, or is it a commercial tort case where the patent serves primarily as evidence of what was misappropriated? The absence of a formal patent infringement count in the complaint suggests the court may first have to resolve the breach of contract and unfair competition claims, which could render any patent questions secondary or moot.
  • If an infringing process is shown, the case may turn on a question of claim scope: can the term "decanting... by flowing... over a liquid impermeable barrier", which the patent illustrates as a passive overflow system, be construed broadly enough to cover an active transfer mechanism (e.g., a pump) that a real-world system might use for efficiency?