DCT
1:25-cv-06639
Spring Coating Systems Americas Corp v. NSX Operating Co LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Spring Coating Systems-Americas Corp. (Georgia)
- Defendant: NSX Operating Co., LLC (Georgia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Taylor Duma LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-06639, N.D. Ga., 11/19/2025
- Venue Allegations: The action was removed to the Northern District of Georgia from the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia. Defendant NSX is an Atlanta-based company, establishing venue in this district.
- Core Dispute: Defendant removed this action from state court, arguing that Plaintiff's state-law claims of bad-faith patent assertion necessarily require resolution of Defendant's federal claim that Plaintiff's chemical solvents infringe a patent on flexographic platewash compositions.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to chemical solvent compositions used to "develop" or "wash out" unhardened material from flexographic printing plates after they have been exposed to UV light, a key step in creating printing reliefs.
- Key Procedural History: This case was removed from Georgia state court. It is related to a pending patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:25-cv-02129) where the current defendant (NSX) is the plaintiff, and the current plaintiff (SCS) is the defendant. In that action, SCS has lodged counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity of the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-08-22 | U.S. Patent No. 9,897,921 Priority Date |
| 2018-02-20 | U.S. Patent No. 9,897,921 Issued |
| 2025-02-18 | Infringement notification letter sent by NSX to SCS |
| 2025-09-11 | SCS serves discovery responses in related E.D. Pa. action |
| 2025-10-21 | SCS files State Court Action in Fulton County, Georgia |
| 2025-10-24 | NSX accepts service of the State Court Action complaint |
| 2025-11-19 | NSX files Notice of Removal (Complaint in this action) |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,897,921 - “Compositions Comprising Mineral Spirits and Methods Related Thereto”, Issued February 20, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a developing solvent for flexographic photopolymer plates that is effective, odorless, non-hazardous, and easily recyclable (’921 Patent, col. 1:12-2:10). Prior art solvents often had intense odors, were classified as hazardous waste, leading to high disposal costs, or caused the photopolymer plates to soften and swell, which degrades printing quality (’921 Patent, col. 1:35-56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a chemical composition that combines mineral spirits (preferably odorless), diisopropylbenzene (DIPB), and at least one specified alcohol (’921 Patent, col. 2:11-17). This specific combination is described as being a low-odor, less toxic, and effective solvent that can remove non-crosslinked photopolymer without causing significant swelling of the desired relief image (’921 Patent, col. 5:25-43).
- Technical Importance: The formulation aims to improve workplace environment (low odor) and reduce regulatory and disposal costs (non-hazardous) while maintaining or improving the technical performance required for high-quality flexographic printing.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The Notice of Removal does not specify which independent claims are asserted, but discusses allegations covering the subject matter of claims 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 (Compl. ¶¶13-14). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core technology.
- Independent Claim 1:
- A composition comprising:
- (a) odorless mineral spirits;
- (b) diisopropylbenzene; and
- (c) at least one alcohol, wherein the at least one alcohol is selected from a specific list of chemicals including benzyl alcohol, and wherein dipropylene glycol methyl ether is absent.
- The Notice of Removal does not state whether the right to assert dependent claims is reserved.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The primary accused product is identified as SCS’s "ECOWASH" (Compl. ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
- ECOWASH is a platewash solvent used in the flexographic printing industry (Compl. ¶11). The Notice of Removal alleges that SCS has admitted in discovery in the related E.D. Pa. litigation that its ECOWASH product contains "DIPB, Isopar L, and benzyl alcohol" (Compl. ¶14). Isopar L is a commercially available isoparaffinic fluid, a type of mineral spirit.
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement theory, as outlined in the Defendant's Notice of Removal, is based on admissions allegedly made by SCS during discovery in a parallel proceeding. The allegations suggest a straightforward literal infringement theory based on the chemical composition of the accused product.
’921 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A composition comprising: (a) odorless mineral spirits; | The accused ECOWASH product is a composition that allegedly contains "Isopar L," a type of mineral spirit. | ¶14 | col. 4:56-62 |
| (b) diisopropylbenzene; and | The accused ECOWASH product allegedly contains diisopropylbenzene ("DIPB"). | ¶14 | col. 5:25-30 |
| (c) at least one alcohol, wherein the at least one alcohol is selected from [a specified list including benzyl alcohol], wherein dipropylene glycol methyl ether is absent. | The accused ECOWASH product allegedly contains benzyl alcohol, which is an alcohol explicitly recited in the list of permissible alcohols in claim 1. | ¶14 | col. 15:24-30 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The primary dispute may center on whether the "Isopar L" component of the accused product meets the claim limitation "odorless mineral spirits." The patent defines this term as mineral spirits "having only a mild odor, or in some instances, no odor" (’921 Patent, col. 4:56-58). The factual characteristics of Isopar L will be compared against this definition.
- Technical Questions: For asserted dependent claims that recite specific weight percentages (e.g., claims 14, 16, 17, 20), a key question will be whether the accused ECOWASH formulation contains the components within those claimed ranges (Compl. ¶14). The Notice of Removal indicates that infringement is also alleged under the doctrine of equivalents, suggesting the exact percentages in the accused product may be close to, but not literally within, the claimed ranges (Compl. ¶15).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"odorless mineral spirits"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 1 and is central to the infringement analysis. The dispute will likely turn on whether the accused "Isopar L" component falls within the scope of this term. A narrow construction could exclude certain commercial solvents, while a broader one could encompass them.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional definition, stating the term refers to mineral spirits "having only a mild odor, or in some instances, no odor" (’921 Patent, col. 4:56-58). This suggests the term is not limited to spirits with a complete absence of odor but includes those with a "mild" one.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also states that odorless mineral spirits "have been further refined, so as to decrease the amount of aromatic constituents that are present" (’921 Patent, col. 4:59-62). A defendant could argue this requires a specific level of refinement or a maximum aromatic content not met by the accused product.
"about"
- Context and Importance: This term is used in several dependent claims that recite specific weight percentages for the chemical components (e.g., claim 3 recites "about 20 wt %" of alcohol). The interpretation of "about" will determine the permissible range of deviation from the stated percentages. This is particularly important given the defendant's allegation of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents for claims with numeric ranges (Compl. ¶¶14-15).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "about." Courts typically interpret the term to mean "approximately" and allow for some reasonable variation, considering the context of the invention.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The precision of the data presented in the patent's examples (e.g., Formulation 2 containing 20% benzyl alcohol) could be used to argue that "about" was intended to cover only minor, insignificant variations from the recited values (’921 Patent, Table 2).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: In the related E.D. Pa. action, NSX has alleged that SCS is an induced and/or contributory infringer (Compl. ¶15). The Notice of Removal does not provide the specific factual basis for these allegations.
- Willful Infringement: The provided document does not mention any allegations of willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case's procedural posture as a removed state-law action for bad-faith assertion means the immediate legal questions concern federal jurisdiction. However, the resolution of those questions, as argued by the Defendant, hinges on the substantive patent dispute. The key questions for the underlying patent case appear to be:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Does the accused product's "Isopar L" component meet the patent's definition of "odorless mineral spirits," which the specification describes as having a "mild odor" and reduced aromatic content?
- A second central question will be one of numeric scope and equivalence: For claims reciting specific component percentages, does the accused ECOWASH formulation fall within the claimed ranges, considering both the literal meaning of the term "about" and the potential application of the doctrine of equivalents to numeric limitations?