DCT

1:10-cv-00035

Therma Stor LLC v. Abatement Tech Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:10-cv-00035, N.D. Ga., 01/06/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Abatement Technologies, Inc. having a business address and conducting business within the Northern District of Georgia, and the alleged infringement arising from activities purposefully directed at residents of Georgia.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ commercial dehumidifiers infringe three patents related to enhanced performance and drying capabilities in dehumidifier systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns high-performance, portable dehumidifiers, particularly those used for professional water damage restoration, which aim to improve efficiency and drying effectiveness.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Technologies Holdings owns the patents-in-suit and licenses them to Therma-Stor. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, all three patents-in-suit underwent inter partes reexamination proceedings at the USPTO. These proceedings resulted in the cancellation of all claims of all three patents. This post-filing development suggests the asserted patent rights are no longer enforceable.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-11-16 Priority Date for '503, '389, and '166 Patents
2007-07-24 U.S. Patent No. 7,246,503 Issued
2007-10-16 U.S. Patent No. 7,281,389 Issued
2009-06-02 U.S. Patent No. 7,540,166 Issued
2010-01-06 Complaint Filing Date
2010-05-27 Inter Partes Reexamination Requested for all three patents
2012-01-03 Reexamination Certificate Issued for '166 Patent (all claims cancelled)
2012-07-24 Reexamination Certificate Issued for '389 Patent (all claims cancelled)
2014-10-01 Reexamination Certificate Issued for '503 Patent (claims 1-3 cancelled)

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,246,503 - "Enhanced Drying Dehumidifier," Issued July 24, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to improve the performance and efficiency of dehumidifiers, particularly for water damage restoration, where drying a floor surface quickly and completely is critical ('503 Patent, col. 2:18-21). A specific problem identified is the creation of "moisture shadows" on the floor directly underneath the dehumidifier unit itself ('503 Patent, col. 5:27-33).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a dehumidifier architecture where an impeller (a type of fan blade) is placed downstream of the condenser coil. This impeller draws air through the refrigeration components and then actively directs the exiting warm, dry air downward and outward through louvered openings on the cabinet's sides and bottom. This directed airflow is designed to dry the floor surface around and, critically, underneath the unit, thus addressing the "moisture shadow" problem ('503 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:65-col. 5:4; col. 5:35-43).
  • Technical Importance: This design combines the function of a dehumidifier with that of a targeted floor-drying fan, potentially improving the speed and thoroughness of water damage restoration with a single piece of equipment ('503 Patent, col. 5:37-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint generally asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶21). The patent as issued contained one independent claim, Claim 1. Note: The Reexamination Certificate for the '503 Patent indicates that Claim 1 was cancelled.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Cancelled):
    • A dehumidifier comprising a cabinet, compressor, condenser coil, expansion device, and evaporator coil arranged in a refrigeration cycle.
    • The cabinet has an air flow path comprising: a first segment passing ambient air to the evaporator coil; a second segment passing air from the evaporator to the condenser coil; and a third segment discharging air from the condenser coil.
    • An impeller is located in the cabinet downstream of the condenser coil.
    • The impeller draws air through the cabinet along the first, second, and third segments of the air flow path.

U.S. Patent No. 7,281,389 - "Enhanced Performance Dehumidifier," Issued October 16, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent aims to enhance dehumidifier performance, particularly under high ambient temperature conditions, which can reduce the efficiency of the refrigeration cycle ('389 Patent, col. 3:29-33).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a specific air-flow architecture. In addition to the primary airflow path where ambient air is cooled by the evaporator before reaching the condenser, a separate, parallel "fourth segment" is introduced. This fourth segment bypasses the evaporator and directs a portion of the incoming ambient air straight to the condenser coil. This stream of warmer, un-dehumidified bypass air mixes with the primary, cooler air stream just before the condenser. This mixing lowers the overall condensing temperature, which extends the operational range and efficiency of the unit ('389 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:5-29).
  • Technical Importance: By modifying the airflow path to include a bypass, the invention allows for improved performance in challenging high-temperature environments without requiring a larger or more powerful compressor or condenser coil ('389 Patent, col. 3:39-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint generally asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶25). The patent as issued contained one independent claim, Claim 1. Note: The Reexamination Certificate for the '389 Patent indicates that all claims (1-9) were cancelled.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Cancelled):
    • A dehumidifier comprising a cabinet and a standard refrigeration cycle.
    • An airflow path with a first segment (ambient air to evaporator), a second segment (evaporator to condenser), and a third segment (discharging from condenser).
    • A "fourth segment passing ambient air to said condenser coil."
    • This fourth segment is "in parallel with said second segment of said air flow path."

U.S. Patent No. 7,540,166 - "Enhanced Performance Dehumidifier," Issued June 2, 2009

Technology Synopsis

As a continuation of the application that led to the '389 Patent, this patent describes a similar technology ('166 Patent, col. 1:7-10). The invention is an enhanced dehumidifier that improves performance by creating a parallel airflow path. This path includes a "fourth segment" that bypasses the evaporator coil, sending a portion of untreated ambient air directly to the condenser coil to mix with the primary dehumidified air stream, thereby improving efficiency ('166 Patent, Abstract). Note: The Reexamination Certificate for the '166 Patent indicates that all claims (1-4) were cancelled.

Asserted Claims

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶29). The patent's sole independent claim as issued was Claim 1.

Accused Features

The complaint accuses the "AquaTrap AT 100S LGR Dehumidifier" of infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 29).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names the "AquaTrap AT 100S LGR Dehumidifier" and "identical or similarly constructed dehumidifiers" as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶¶14, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused products as "enhanced drying and/or enhanced performance dehumidifiers" (Compl. ¶16). It does not provide a detailed technical description of the products' internal operation. To demonstrate the product, the complaint references web pages from Defendant Abatement and a distributor, attached as Exhibit D (Compl. ¶17). A web page from the defendant and a distributor is provided as Exhibit D to demonstrate the allegedly infringing product (Compl. ¶17). The "LGR" (Low-Grain Refrigerant) designation suggests the product is marketed for high-performance applications, such as water damage restoration, where achieving very low humidity levels is required.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement allegations. It makes only general allegations that the accused products "infringe one or more claims" of each patent-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 25, 29). No claim chart, element-by-element comparison, or substantive narrative infringement theory is included in the pleading.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '503 Patent

  • The Term: "an impeller in said cabinet downstream of said condenser coil" (from cancelled Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: The precise location of the air-moving component is a central feature of the invention claimed in the '503 Patent. The infringement analysis would depend on the structural location of the fan or blower in the accused device relative to its condenser coil.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "impeller," which could be argued to cover various types of fan blades or blowers that move air.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific preferred embodiment, a "backward incline blade impeller" ('503 Patent, col. 4:41-43). A party could argue that the term should be construed in light of this specific disclosure, potentially narrowing its scope to exclude other types of air-moving components.

For the '389 Patent

  • The Term: "a fourth segment...in parallel with said second segment" (from cancelled Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the core inventive concept of the '389 Patent—the bypass air path. The entire infringement question for this patent would turn on whether the accused product's internal airflow can be characterized as having two distinct, parallel paths as required by the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function of this architecture as "bypassing a percentage of incoming ambient air around the evaporator" ('389 Patent, col. 3:20-22). This functional description could support an interpretation that covers any physical arrangement achieving this bypass result.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 8 and the accompanying text describe a specific structure with an inlet grate having two distinct branches (64a, 64b) that physically separate the airflow into the primary and bypass paths at the inlet ('389 Patent, col. 3:15-20). A party could argue the claim should be limited to an apparatus with a similarly distinct, physically separated branching structure.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes a conclusory allegation of induced and contributory infringement, stating that "upon information and belief, defendants... have induced others to infringe and/or contributed to the" infringement (Compl. ¶18). No specific facts, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials that instruct on an infringing use, are provided to support this allegation.

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of "willful" infringement. However, it requests that the court find the case "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285" and award attorneys' fees (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶¶ H, I). Such a request is typically predicated on allegations of willful infringement or other litigation misconduct. The complaint does not allege any facts related to pre-suit knowledge of the patents.

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

The analysis of this complaint, when viewed in conjunction with the later-issued reexamination certificates, raises fundamental questions about the viability and initial framing of the lawsuit.

  • A dispositive issue for the case is one of patent validity: given that all claims of all three patents-in-suit were cancelled in inter partes reexamination proceedings subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the central question is whether any enforceable patent rights remain to support the infringement action.

  • A foundational procedural question at the time of filing was one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint’s framework, which alleges infringement of unspecified claims without providing any supporting technical facts or element-by-element comparison, satisfy the plausibility pleading standards necessary to advance a patent infringement claim?

  • Assuming the claims were valid, a core technical issue for the '389 and '166 Patents would be one of architectural identity: does the accused dehumidifier’s air-handling system contain a distinct, parallel bypass air path that directs ambient air to the condenser, as required by the claims, or does it utilize a different architecture for managing airflow and temperature?