DCT
3:25-cv-50027
Diesel Tech LLC v. Deere & Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Diesel Technologies LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Deere & Company (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
- Case Identification: 3:25-cv-50027, N.D. Ill., 01/17/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant maintains corporate offices in the district, transacts business there, and a portion of the alleged infringement occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Exhaust After-Treatment Systems, used in certain John Deere engines, infringe a patent related to a method for cleaning and regenerating diesel particulate filters.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for extending the operational life of diesel particulate filters (DPFs), which are critical components for meeting modern vehicle emissions standards by capturing soot and ash from engine exhaust.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-12-18 | U.S. Patent No. 8,474,246 Priority Date |
| 2006-01-01 | Approximate timeframe for invention development |
| 2013-07-02 | U.S. Patent No. 8,474,246 Issued |
| 2025-01-17 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,474,246 - METHOD OF OPERATING A PARTICLE FILTER IN THE EXHAUST SYSTEM OF A MOTOR VEHICLE'S INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,474,246, "METHOD OF OPERATING A PARTICLE FILTER IN THE EXHAUST SYSTEM OF A MOTOR VEHICLE'S INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE", issued July 2, 2013.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Diesel particulate filters (DPFs) effectively capture soot from exhaust but also accumulate non-combustible inorganic ash over time. While periodic "soot burn-off" procedures can clear the soot, the ash builds up, slowly increasing exhaust backpressure and eventually rendering the filter useless, requiring complex and costly replacement ('246 Patent, col. 1:30-41, 1:47-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method to reduce the accumulated ash during the vehicle's operation. This is achieved by heating the filter and introducing a "reducing agent" (such as hydrocarbons from fuel) along with the exhaust gas. This agent is intended to react with and chemically convert the non-metallic components of the ash (e.g., sulfates and phosphates) into volatile compounds that can then be expelled from the filter with the exhaust stream ('246 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-8).
- Technical Importance: This method offers a way to regenerate, rather than just clean, the DPF, potentially extending its service life, reducing maintenance costs, and aiding compliance with increasingly strict emissions standards (Compl. ¶17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least claims 1-4 and 7 (Compl. ¶27). Independent claim 1 is the basis for the other asserted claims.
- Independent Claim 1: The essential elements of this method claim include:
- A method of operating a particle filter that collects soot and ashes and is reconditioned by a soot burn-off procedure.
- Reducing the mass of the ash deposits in the filter by heating the filter.
- Supplying a "reducing agent" to the filter along with the exhaust gas.
- The reducing agent reacts with the ash deposits to "chemically convert" them.
- As a result, "at least non-metallic constituent parts of the ash deposits are carried out of the particle filter."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims but seeks damages for infringement of the '246 patent generally (Compl. ¶B, Prayer for Relief).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Accused Instrumentalities are certain John Deere engines, including the JD9X, JD9P, JD14P, and JD14X Tier 4 Engines, which contain an Exhaust After-Treatment System (EATS) that includes a DPF (Compl. ¶27).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these EATS systems are used to comply with emissions standards by removing particulate matter from engine exhaust (Compl. ¶25). The core accused functionality is a method of operating the DPF to recondition it by clearing soot and ash, which allegedly includes a process of heating the filter and using a reducing agent to chemically convert and expel ash deposits (Compl. ¶28). The complaint asserts that this technology provides significant commercial value and cost advantages by reducing DPF replacement costs and enabling more effective emissions compliance (Compl. ¶17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim chart in Exhibit B, which was not filed with the complaint. The analysis below is based on the narrative infringement allegations.
'246 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a method of operating a particle filter... in which the filter collects soot and ashes and is reconditioned in intervals by a burn off procedure | The Accused Instrumentalities are DPF filters within an EATS system that undergo reconditioning. | ¶28 | col. 1:13-16 |
| reducing the mass of the ash in the filter by heating the filter | The accused method includes "heating the filter." | ¶28 | col. 2:1-2 |
| and supplying to the filter along with the exhaust gas of the engine a reducing agent | The accused method involves "supplying to the filter along with the exhaust gas of the engine a reducing agent." | ¶28 | col. 2:2-4 |
| to chemically convert the ash such that parts of the converted ash are carried out by the exhaust gas | The supplied reducing agent is alleged to "chemically convert the ash such that parts of the converted ash are carried out by the exhaust gas." | ¶28 | col. 2:4-8 |
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: The central dispute will likely concern the actual chemical process occurring within the Deere EATS. The complaint alleges the system performs a chemical conversion of ash, not just a thermal burn-off of soot. A key question for the court will be whether the evidence demonstrates that the accused process actually "chemically converts" the "non-metallic constituent parts" of the ash (e.g., sulfates, phosphates) as required by the claim, or if it primarily performs a standard soot regeneration cycle.
- Scope Question: The interpretation of "reducing agent" will be critical. The complaint alleges that fuel used for operating the engine is utilized as the reducing agent (Compl. ¶30), an embodiment contemplated by the patent ('246 Patent, col. 8:26-29). The dispute may focus on whether the mere injection of fuel for a high-temperature cleaning cycle qualifies as supplying a "reducing agent" for the specific purpose of ash conversion, or if the claim requires a more specific set of reducing chemical species or engine operating conditions.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "reducing agent"
Context and Importance: This term is the active ingredient of the claimed method. The infringement case depends on Plaintiff proving that the substance used in Deere's filter cleaning process is a "reducing agent" that performs the claimed function on ash. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from conventional DPF regeneration that only targets soot.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that various substances can serve as the agent, including "gaseous reducing compounds such as hydrogen, carbon monoxide or hydrocarbons" and fuel used for the engine ('246 Patent, col. 2:23-26, 2:35-37). This language could support a broad definition covering any hydrocarbon fuel injected into the system.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes more specific methods for generating the agent, such as a "cracking-, reforming- or gasification process" or running the engine with an "under-stoichiometric operation" ('246 Patent, col. 2:41-42, 2:61-67). A defendant could argue these passages limit the term to agents created under these more specific conditions, not just any unburned fuel.
The Term: "chemically convert the ash"
Context and Importance: This phrase defines the outcome of the claimed process and is the core of the alleged technical advance over prior art. The dispute will likely hinge on whether Deere's system merely heats ash or actively transforms its chemical composition.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the goal as decomposing "at least non-metallic ash components" so they can be "carried out of the particle filter by the exhaust gas" ('246 Patent, col. 2:6-8). This could be argued to cover any reaction that makes the ash components volatile.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific examples of chemical conversions, such as decomposing magnesium phosphate into magnesium oxide or calcium sulfate into calcium carbonate ('246 Patent, col. 6:3-14). A defendant might argue that "chemically convert" should be limited to these or similar specific decomposition reactions, which they may contend their system does not perform.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that since receiving notice of the suit, Deere has induced infringement by providing instruction materials, training, and advertising for the Accused Instrumentalities, with the specific intent for end-users to operate them in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶40-41).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged knowledge of the '246 patent and infringement "at least as early as the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶39). The allegation is thus based on post-suit conduct (Compl. ¶42).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:
A core issue will be one of technical mechanism: Can the plaintiff provide sufficient evidence that the accused John Deere EATS performs the specific function of chemically converting non-combustible ash deposits, as distinct from the common and well-known process of thermally burning off soot? The complaint's conclusory allegations on this point will require substantial evidentiary support.
A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the term "reducing agent"? The case may turn on whether the routine injection of diesel fuel during a high-temperature filter cleaning cycle is sufficient to meet the claim limitation, or if the term requires a more specific chemical environment or a composition created by the particular processes described in the patent's embodiments.