DCT
1:19-cv-10307
Ecolab USA Inc v. B & B Pest Control
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ecolab USA Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: B & B Pest Control (Massachusetts), John Bozarjian Sr. (Massachusetts), and John Bozarjian Jr. (Massachusetts)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-10307, D. Mass., 02/19/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Massachusetts as the individual defendants reside in the district and the corporate defendant maintains its principal place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ pest control services, which utilize the "AmCan BugStop Hot House" system, infringe a patent related to a portable, heated enclosure for eradicating pests.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns targeted heat treatment systems for decontaminating items like furniture, offering a non-chemical alternative to pesticides for infestations such as bed bugs.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided notice of the patent-in-suit to the manufacturer of the accused product, AmCan, on September 27, 2018, and that AmCan subsequently informed Defendants of the patent and infringement allegations, forming the basis for the willfulness claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-03-18 | ’639 Patent Priority Date |
| 2018-09-11 | ’639 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-09-27 | Plaintiff sent notice letter to AmCan, manufacturer of the accused product |
| 2019-02-19 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,070,639 - “HEAT SYSTEM FOR KILLING PESTS,” issued Sep. 11, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes challenges with existing pest treatments, including the high cost of discarding infested items like furniture, the restricted use of pesticides, and the inefficiency of whole-room heat treatments that can damage property or create "cold spots" where pests can survive (’639 Patent, col. 1:21-38).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable system for treating individual articles. It comprises a flexible, inflatable enclosure made of insulated material and a connected heating unit. A programmable logic controller and at least one thermocouple are used to gradually increase, monitor, and maintain the air temperature inside the enclosure at a level lethal to pests (e.g., 115° F), and then control the cool-down, thereby killing pests without damaging the treated article (’639 Patent, col. 1:55-67; col. 2:15-24).
- Technical Importance: The patented technology provides a targeted, portable, and reusable method for eradicating pests from specific items, which may be more efficient and less disruptive than treating an entire building or using chemical fumigants (’639 Patent, col. 1:39-42).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent system claim 1 and independent method claim 13 (Compl. ¶¶13-14).
- Independent Claim 1 (System) requires, among other elements:
- A flexible and inflatable enclosure made of insulated material, comprising a floor, at least one side, a zipper, an inlet hole, and an outlet hole
- A heating system with a heater and fan connected to the enclosure's holes
- At least two thermocouples configured to be located inside the enclosure
- A controller electrically connected to the heater and thermocouples
- Independent Claim 13 (Method) requires, among other steps:
- Opening a zipper on a flexible and inflatable enclosure and placing articles inside
- Sealing the enclosure by closing the zipper
- Connecting a heater and placing at least one thermocouple inside
- Powering the heater to blow hot air into the enclosure
- Monitoring the temperature with the thermocouple
- Maintaining a temperature of at least 115° F. for a period of about 1 minute to 10 hours
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 3-5, 7-12, 15, 17, and 19 (Compl. ¶¶11, 14).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are the "AmCan BugStop Hot House" system (the "Hot House") and the Defendants' services that employ this system for bed bug treatment (Compl. ¶¶11, 14).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Hot House is used for the "quick and effective killing of bed bugs in all life stages within hours, without chemicals" (Compl. ¶12). It is allegedly capable of holding large items like "mattresses, box springs, headboards, couches, and more" (Compl. ¶12). Defendants are alleged to market this service as an "economical and effective" treatment option (Compl. ¶12).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint makes general allegations that the accused system and service meet every limitation of the asserted claims but does not provide an element-by-element breakdown of its infringement theory (Compl. ¶¶13-14). The following charts are based on matching the claim elements to the general descriptions provided.
’639 Patent Infringement Allegations (System Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A pest treatment system comprising: a flexible and inflatable enclosure made of insulated material, the enclosure comprising: a floor; at least one side connected to the floor... a zipper on at least part of the side... an inlet hole; and an outlet hole | Defendants' use of the "AmCan BugStop Hot House" system, which is described as holding items like mattresses for heat treatment. The complaint does not provide specific detail on the construction (e.g., inflatable nature, zipper, inlet/outlet holes) of the accused enclosure, but alleges that it meets every limitation of the claim. | ¶¶11-13 | col. 10:11-19 |
| a heating system comprising: a heater connected to the inlet hole and the outlet hole, the heater including a fan; at least two thermocouples electrically connected to the heater... and a controller electrically connected to the heater. | Defendants' use of the "Hot House" system to perform bed bug heat treatments. The complaint does not provide specific detail on the components of the accused heating system (e.g., number of thermocouples, type of controller), but alleges that it meets every limitation of the claim. | ¶¶11-13 | col. 10:20-27 |
’639 Patent Infringement Allegations (Method Claim 13)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| opening a zipper on a flexible and inflatable enclosure... placing the one or more articles inside... sealing the enclosure by closing the zipper | Defendants' service of using the Hot House to treat items for bed bug infestations. The complaint does not detail the specific operational steps taken by Defendants but alleges their service meets every limitation of the method claim. | ¶¶12, 14 | col. 10:52-59 |
| connecting a heater to the enclosure through at least one port; placing at least one thermocouple within the enclosure... powering on the heater to blow hot air into the enclosure; monitoring the temperature with the thermocouple | Defendants' service of employing the Hot House system, which provides heat treatment for bed bugs. The complaint does not describe the specific configuration or monitoring process used, but alleges infringement of the claimed method. | ¶¶12, 14 | col. 10:61-66 |
| maintaining a temperature of a least 115° F. inside the enclosure for about 1 minute to about 10 hours. | Defendants' service offering "effective killing of bed bugs in all life stages within hours." The complaint does not specify the exact temperatures or durations used by Defendants but alleges their process meets the claimed parameters. | ¶¶12, 14 | col. 10:67-69 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint lacks specific factual allegations detailing how the accused "Hot House" system is constructed and operates. A central issue will be whether discovery reveals that the system actually contains every element of the asserted claims, such as being "flexible and inflatable," having "at least two thermocouples," and utilizing a "controller" as claimed.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the Defendants' service method involves "monitoring the temperature with the thermocouple" and "maintaining a temperature of at least 115° F." for the claimed duration? The allegations are currently conclusory.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "controller"
Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires a "controller electrically connected to the heater." The definition of this term will be critical. If construed broadly, it could cover a simple thermostat; if construed narrowly, it might require more sophisticated, programmable functionality. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent specification extensively describes a "programmable logic controller" that performs a specific temperature ramp-up, hold, and ramp-down sequence.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of claim 1 simply recites "a controller" without further functional limitations in the claim itself (’639 Patent, col. 10:27).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the controller as a "programmable logic controller" that executes a pre-determined, multi-step temperature management program, including a controlled ramp rate (’639 Patent, col. 2:21-24; col. 8:1-50). Parties may argue this context limits the scope of "controller" to a device capable of such programming.
The Term: "at least two thermocouples"
Context and Importance: Claim 1 specifies the presence of "at least two thermocouples." The existence and function of these components in the accused device will be a primary factual dispute. The question is not just whether two temperature sensors exist, but whether they meet the definition of "thermocouples" and are configured as claimed.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the presence of the components but does not specify their exact placement or differential function (’639 Patent, col. 10:24-26).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests distinct roles for multiple thermocouples, such as placing one in a potential "cold spot" to ensure lethal temperatures are reached throughout the enclosure or placing a second one inside the article being treated (’639 Patent, col. 4:55-67; col. 8:51-62). This could support an argument that the claim implies a functional purpose beyond simple redundancy.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants’ infringement has been willful (Compl. ¶20). This allegation is based on alleged knowledge of the ’639 Patent. The complaint asserts that Plaintiff sent a notice letter to AmCan, the manufacturer of the Hot House, and that "upon information and belief, Defendants were informed by AmCan of the existence of the '639 patent" and the infringement allegations prior to the lawsuit being filed (Compl. ¶¶16, 18).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: given the complaint's lack of specific technical detail, can the Plaintiff demonstrate through discovery that the accused "AmCan BugStop Hot House" and the services using it actually practice every element of the asserted claims, particularly the structural requirements of the enclosure and the specific components of the heating and control system?
- The case may also turn on a question of claim scope: will the term "controller" be given its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering any automatic temperature-regulating device, or will its scope be narrowed by the specification's detailed description of a "programmable logic controller" that executes a specific, timed temperature-ramping protocol? The outcome of this construction could be dispositive.