DCT

1:05-cv-03323

Chemfree Corp v. Zymo Intl Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:05-cv-03323, N.D. Ga., 12/30/2005
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Georgia as it is the location of the Defendant's principal place of business.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a court order to confirm a 2005 arbitration award and to compel Defendant to submit to binding arbitration on ten additional controversies arising from a patent co-ownership agreement between the parties.
  • Technical Context: The patents at issue relate to "environmentally friendly" parts washer systems that use a bioremediating cleaning fluid containing microorganisms to break down organic waste.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the parties entered into a "Co-Ownership Agreement" in 1996, which mandates arbitration for all disputes related to the co-owned patents. Plaintiff alleges that a 2005 arbitration resulted in an award that Defendant has not honored. The current action arises from Defendant's subsequent alleged refusal to arbitrate ten new controversies, including an attempt by Defendant to terminate Plaintiff's co-ownership rights in the entire patent portfolio.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1994-09-30 Earliest Patent Priority Date
1996-10-14 Co-Ownership Agreement executed between parties
1999-10-05 U.S. Patent No. 5,961,733 issues
2000-02-01 U.S. Patent No. 6,019,110 issues
2000-04-04 U.S. Patent No. 6,044,854 issues
2000-06-13 U.S. Patent No. 6,074,491 issues
2000-08-01 U.S. Patent No. 6,095,163 issues
2001-11-20 U.S. Patent No. 6,318,387 issues
2001-12-11 U.S. Patent No. 6,328,045 issues
2002-04-23 U.S. Patent No. 6,374,835 issues
2002-08-27 U.S. Patent No. 6,440,226 issues
2002-09-17 U.S. Patent No. 6,451,125 issues
2003-06-03 U.S. Patent No. 6,571,810 issues
2004-09-23 Defendant ZYMO sends letter authorizing Plaintiff to proceed as sole plaintiff in separate litigation
2005 Arbitration between parties results in the "2005 Arbitration Award"
2005-10-26 Defendant ZYMO sends letter purporting to terminate Plaintiff's patent rights
2005-12-06 Defendant ZYMO moves to intervene in separate litigation
2005-12-30 Complaint filed

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

The complaint does not assert any patents for infringement but rather centers on contractual and ownership rights related to a patent portfolio. The first two patents listed in the complaint as subject to the parties' Co-Ownership Agreement are analyzed below to provide technical context for the dispute (Compl. ¶10).

U.S. Patent No. 6,019,110 - "Parts Washing System"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional parts washers as reliant on mineral spirits, which are classified as hazardous materials due to low flash points and potential health concerns. This creates issues with handling, environmental impact, and expensive, regulated disposal of both the used solvent and the saturated filters (’110 Patent, col. 1:12-53).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a parts washing system that uses a non-toxic, aqueous cleaning fluid containing living microorganisms. This "biologic component" digests organic waste like oils and grease washed from parts, breaking it down into non-contaminating components. The system is described as a "closed, self contained environment" that recycles the cleaning fluid, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for hazardous waste disposal ('110 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-12, col. 2:60-65).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provided an "environmentally friendly" alternative to traditional solvent-based parts washers, aimed at reducing hazardous waste generation and associated regulatory and disposal costs for industrial and automotive repair facilities ('110 Patent, col. 2:39-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not assert any specific claims of the ’110 Patent for infringement.

U.S. Patent No. 6,074,491 - "Parts Washing System"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’110 Patent, the background addresses the drawbacks of using mineral spirits in parts washers, citing them as hazardous materials that require special handling and disposal under government regulations (’491 Patent, col. 1:28-40).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a multi-tiered basin and cleaning fluid with a "biological component" of nonpathogenic microorganisms that break down organic waste. The system is designed to maintain a proper environment for the microorganisms with features like aeration and heating, allowing the fluid to be reused continuously while minimizing hazardous byproducts ('491 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-24).
  • Technical Importance: The invention aims to decrease the production of hazardous waste materials from parts cleaning operations by replacing a chemical solvent process with a biological one ('491 Patent, col. 2:42-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not assert any specific claims of the ’491 Patent for infringement.

  • Multi-Patent Capsule for Additional Patents

The complaint also lists U.S. Patent Nos. 6,374,835; 6,440,226; 6,451,125; 6,571,810; 6,318,387; 5,961,733; 6,044,854; 6,095,163; and 6,328,045 as being co-owned by the parties (Compl. ¶10). These patents share a common specification and describe related aspects of the same bioremediating parts washer technology. No specific claims from these patents are asserted for infringement in this complaint.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint does not identify an accused instrumentality for infringement analysis. One of the controversies Plaintiff seeks to arbitrate is Defendant's allegation that Plaintiff "is now infringing ZYMO's exclusive patent rights" (Compl. ¶19). However, the complaint provides no technical details regarding any product or service of the Plaintiff that is the subject of that dispute.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Other Allegations

The complaint is not for patent infringement but is a petition to confirm a prior arbitration award (Count I) and compel arbitration for ten new controversies (Count II) under the parties' Co-Ownership Agreement (Compl. ¶8, ¶11). The ten controversies alleged to be arbitrable are:

  1. Declaration of Non-Termination of Patent Rights: A dispute over whether Defendant ZYMO lawfully terminated Plaintiff ChemFree’s co-ownership rights to the patent portfolio (Compl. ¶17-18).
  2. ChemFree’s Alleged Infringement: A dispute over Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff is infringing the co-owned patents, which Plaintiff disputes on the grounds that its ownership rights have not been terminated (Compl. ¶19).
  3. Allegations of Fraud: A dispute concerning Defendant’s allegation that Plaintiff defrauded it by concealing a "patent license" (Compl. ¶20).
  4. Shared Legal Expenses: A dispute over Defendant’s alleged failure to pay its share of patent prosecution costs as determined by the 2005 Arbitration Award (Compl. ¶21).
  5. Violation of Non-Disparagement Covenants: Allegations that Defendant told Plaintiff’s customers that Plaintiff had lost its patent rights (Compl. ¶22).
  6. Misrepresentation of Ownership: Allegations that Defendant is misrepresenting to customers that it has sole ownership of the patents following a purported forfeiture by Plaintiff (Compl. ¶23).
  7. Tortious Interference: Allegations that Defendant’s communications with Plaintiff’s customers constitute tortious interference with business relationships (Compl. ¶24).
  8. Slander of Title: Allegations that Defendant is slandering Plaintiff’s title in the co-owned patents (Compl. ¶15, p.14-15).
  9. Standing to Pursue Infringement Litigation: A dispute over whether Plaintiff has standing to sue a third-party infringer (J. Walter Company) without formally joining Defendant as a co-plaintiff (Compl. ¶25).
  10. Waiver and Disclaimer of Rights: A dispute over Defendant’s attempt to intervene in the J. Walter litigation after allegedly having waived its rights and disclaimed any interest in the matter (Compl. ¶26).

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

As this is not a patent infringement case, the central issues are contractual and procedural rather than technical. The case will likely turn on the following open questions:

  • A primary issue will be one of contractual scope: does the 1996 Co-Ownership Agreement's mandatory arbitration clause encompass all ten of the distinct controversies alleged by ChemFree, which range from patent ownership rights to business torts such as disparagement and tortious interference?
  • A key threshold question will be the enforceability of the prior award: has ChemFree satisfied the statutory requirements under the Federal Arbitration Act for the court to confirm the 2005 Arbitration Award and enter it as a formal judgment?
  • A central legal question will be the arbitrability of patent rights: can an arbitrator, under the terms of the parties' private agreement, definitively resolve disputes over the termination of patent co-ownership rights and allegations of infringement between the co-owners, matters typically reserved for federal court jurisdiction?