DCT
2:17-cv-00068
Presby Patent Trust v. Infiltrator Water Tech LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Presby Patent Trust (New Hampshire)
- Defendant: Infiltrator Water Technologies, LLC and Infiltrator Systems, Inc. (Connecticut)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Perkins Olson, PA.
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00068, D. Me., 02/22/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that the Defendant, through distributors or otherwise, has sold or caused the installation of infringing products within the state of Maine.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s septic system products infringe patents related to fluid conduits that use specific multi-layer fabric and coarse material configurations for treating wastewater effluent.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to wastewater treatment systems, specifically leach field components designed to filter suspended solids and biological matter from septic tank effluent before it is returned to the ground.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents, including receiving actual notice of the ’094 patent on December 22, 2014, and having actual knowledge of the patent applications for both patents-in-suit prior to their issuance. These allegations form the basis for a claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-05-24 | Priority Date for ’094 and ’604 Patents |
| 2013-05-02 | Publication of application leading to ’094 Patent |
| 2014-08-26 | U.S. Patent No. 8,815,094 Issued |
| 2014-12-22 | Alleged Actual Notice of ’094 Patent Infringement |
| 2016-01-21 | Publication of application leading to ’604 Patent |
| 2017-01-31 | U.S. Patent No. 9,556,604 Issued |
| 2017-02-22 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,815,094 - "FLUID CONDUIT WITH LAYERED AND PARTIAL COVERING MATERIAL THEREON", Issued August 26, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the problem of suspended solids, such as grease, oil, lint, and fuzz from modern cleaning products, passing through septic tanks and clogging the downstream leach field systems, thereby reducing their effectiveness and lifespan (’094 Patent, col. 1:24-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and apparatus for treating effluent using a perforated conduit wrapped with multiple, distinct layers of fabric and coarse material. By using layers with different properties (e.g., deniers) and configurations, including layers that only partially surround the conduit, the system is designed to manage fluid flow, promote staged filtration, and create specific interfaces for beneficial bacterial growth to break down pollutants (’094 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:41-8:5). This controlled overflow and multi-stage treatment approach is intended to prevent the rapid clogging seen in prior art filters.
- Technical Importance: The technology aims to create a more robust and longer-lasting leach field component by moving beyond simple filtration to a system that actively manages biological treatment and fluid dynamics through a specific multi-layer structure (’094 Patent, col. 4:1-6).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶10, ¶27).
- The essential elements of independent claim 8 are:
- A method of separating particulates in an effluent, the method comprising:
- providing a substantially cylindrical conduit having an outside and comprising apertures, at least one coarse layer partially surrounding the outside of the conduit, and a fabric layer positioned outside of the at least one coarse layer;
- introducing the effluent into the conduit;
- flowing the effluent through the at least one coarse layer;
- flowing the effluent through the fabric layer; and
- separating particulates in the effluent by size.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 9, 10, 11, and 12 (Compl. ¶11, ¶27).
U.S. Patent No. 9,556,604 - "Liquid Waste Treatment Apparatus", Issued January 31, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’094 patent: the failure of conventional septic systems to effectively remove suspended solids, which leads to the clogging and failure of leach fields (’604 Patent, col. 1:26-54).
- The Patented Solution: The ’604 patent claims a specific wastewater treatment apparatus comprising a perforated conduit surrounded by a precise sequence of layers. The claimed arrangement includes a tubular plastic mesh, a first coarse layer, two distinct fabric layers, and a second coarse layer that is positioned between the two fabric layers and only partially covers the conduit's circumference (’604 Patent, Abstract; col. 11:32-47). This specific, concentric layering is designed to create an integrated system that enhances bacterial treatment and extends the operational life of the apparatus.
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a pre-configured apparatus that embodies the principles of multi-layer, multi-interface effluent treatment, aiming to improve performance and longevity compared to simpler fabric-wrapped pipes or other leach field technologies (’604 Patent, col. 8:55-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 9, and 12 (Compl. ¶16-18, ¶29).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A wastewater treatment system comprising:
- a conduit arranged for fluid communication with a septic system, having a side wall with perforations;
- a tubular plastic mesh surrounding the conduit;
- a first coarse layer surrounded by the plastic mesh;
- a first fabric layer outside the plastic mesh;
- a second fabric layer positioned outside the first fabric layer; and
- a second coarse layer positioned between the first and second fabric layers, with the second coarse layer partially covering the conduit's circumference.
- The essential elements of independent claim 9 include:
- An apparatus comprising: a conduit with apertures;
- a first fabric layer surrounding a portion of the conduit; and
- a second fabric layer outside the first, partially separated from the first by a concentrically arranged layer of coarse material.
- The essential elements of independent claim 12 include:
- An apparatus comprising: a cylindrical conduit with apertures;
- a first fabric layer with a certain coarseness; and
- a second fabric layer with a lesser coarseness, where the layers are concentrically arranged with a coarse material in between.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2-8, 10, 11, and 13 (Compl. ¶19).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is the "Infiltrator Advanced Treatment Leachfield" or "Infiltrator ATL" (Compl. ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
- The ATL is described as a wastewater treatment and dispersal product for use in septic systems (Compl. ¶20). It is marketed as a “proprietary geotextile/media multi-layer treatment system” for septic tank effluent (Compl. ¶21).
- According to the complaint, which references the Defendant's website, the ATL product is comprised of a four-inch perforated pipe surrounded by a plastic mesh. This assembly is in turn surrounded by what is described as "Large diameter synthetic aggregate." On top of this are two fabric layers, which are affixed to each other and "used to form pockets containing small diameter synthetic aggregate which partially covers the circumference of the pipe" (Compl. ¶22).
- The complaint alleges the product is sold and installed in the state of Maine (Compl. ¶23).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’094 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the manufacture, use, and sale of the ATL system directly infringes method claim 8, and that Defendant induces infringement by providing instructions to customers and installers to use the ATL system in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶27, ¶36). The infringement theory for the method steps relies on the structure and intended operation of the ATL product.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a substantially cylindrical conduit having an outside and comprising apertures, at least one coarse layer partially surrounding the outside of the conduit, and a fabric layer positioned outside of the at least one coarse layer | The ATL product consists of a perforated pipe (conduit) with surrounding layers of "synthetic aggregate" (coarse layer) and fabric layers. | ¶22, ¶24 | col. 3:1-3 |
| introducing the effluent into the conduit | This method step is performed by end-users and installers when installing and using the ATL system for its intended purpose in a septic system. | ¶36 | col. 3:21-28 |
| flowing the effluent through the at least one coarse layer | This is an inherent result of using the ATL product, where effluent must pass through the aggregate layer to be dispersed. | ¶22b, ¶36 | col. 3:29-31 |
| flowing the effluent through the fabric layer | This is an inherent result of using the ATL product, where effluent passes through the outer fabric layers. | ¶22c, ¶36 | col. 3:26-28 |
| separating particulates in the effluent by size | The complaint alleges the ATL system functions as a multi-layer treatment system, which implies the function of separating particulates. | ¶21, ¶24 | col. 7:13-18 |
’604 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides a more direct mapping of the ATL product's features to the elements of claim 1 of the ’604 Patent.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a conduit constructed and arranged to be in fluid communication with a septic system... with perforations therethrough | The ATL product includes a "four-inch in diameter perforated pipe." | ¶22a | col. 3:1-4 |
| a tubular plastic mesh surrounding the conduit | The ATL product includes a "plastic mesh that surrounds the perforated pipe." | ¶22b | col. 4:17-18 |
| a first coarse layer surrounded by the plastic mesh | The ATL product includes "Large diameter synthetic aggregate surrounded by a plastic mesh." | ¶22b | col. 3:5-6 |
| a first fabric layer outside the plastic mesh | The ATL product utilizes "two more fabric layers. The first layer (i.e., 'a first fabric layer outside the plastic mesh')." | ¶22c | col. 3:4-5 |
| a second fabric layer positioned outside the first fabric layer | The first fabric layer is "affixed to a second fabric layer (i.e., 'a second fabric layer positioned outside the first fabric layer')." | ¶22c | col. 3:1-3 |
| a second coarse layer... positioned between the first fabric layer and the second fabric layer, the second coarse layer partially covering the circumference of the conduit | The fabric layers are "used to form pockets containing small diameter synthetic aggregate which partially covers the circumference of the pipe." | ¶22c | col. 3:6-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether the term "coarse layer," as used in the patents, can be construed to read on the "synthetic aggregate" alleged to be used in the ATL product. The patents provide examples such as "random fiber layer" and "plastic grid mesh" (’094 Patent, col. 3:15-18), raising the question of whether particulate material falls within the scope of the claims.
- Technical Questions: The infringement allegation for the final limitation of claim 1 of the ’604 Patent hinges on whether the ATL's structure of two "affixed" fabric layers forming "pockets" of aggregate is equivalent to the claimed "second coarse layer positioned between the first fabric layer and the second fabric layer." A dispute may arise over whether this pocketed, composite structure is structurally distinct from the separate, continuous layers depicted and described in the patent (e.g., ’604 Patent, Fig. 17).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "coarse layer" (from ’094 Claim 8 and ’604 Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the structure of the invention in both patents. The infringement case depends on this term covering the "synthetic aggregate" used in the accused ATL product. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s examples differ from the material used in the accused product.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the layer in functional terms related to providing a large surface area and allowing fluid passage, without strictly limiting its composition. The use of "coarse, random fiber layer" and "plastic grid mesh" as examples may be argued to be illustrative, not exhaustive (’094 Patent, col. 3:15-18).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly uses "fibers" and "mesh" as the primary embodiments for the coarse layer throughout the detailed description and figures (’094 Patent, Fig. 1, 7, 17). A party could argue that the inventor contemplated a fibrous or mesh-like structure, not a particulate aggregate, which may have different hydraulic and filtration properties.
The Term: "a second coarse layer positioned between the first fabric layer and the second fabric layer" (from ’604 Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the specific multi-layer arrangement at the core of ’604 Patent's claim 1. The complaint alleges this is met by fabric "pockets containing" aggregate. The case may turn on whether this configuration meets the "positioned between" requirement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that as long as the aggregate material is functionally located between the two fabric sheets that form the pocket, it satisfies the spirit of the claim by creating the intended separation and filtration interface.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language and figures suggest three distinct, sequentially wrapped layers (fabric, then coarse material, then another fabric layer) (’604 Patent, Fig. 17). A party could argue that a structure where two fabric layers are "affixed" to form "pockets" that contain the coarse material is a different structure than a coarse layer positioned between two otherwise separate fabric layers.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant provides instructions to customers and installers on how to use the ATL system in a way that directly infringes the asserted claims (Compl. ¶36). The complaint also pleads contributory infringement by alleging the ATL product has no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶26, ¶30).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges Defendant received "actual notice" of the ’094 patent on or about December 22, 2014 (Compl. ¶31). It further alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the published patent applications for both patents prior to their issuance and "took deliberate actions to avoid learning" of the patents' existence (Compl. ¶33, ¶34, ¶40).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope and structural equivalence: can the term "coarse layer," which the patents illustrate with fibrous and mesh materials, be construed to cover the "synthetic aggregate" used in the accused ATL product? Further, does the accused product's alleged structure of "pockets" containing aggregate meet the claim requirement of a distinct layer "positioned between" two fabric layers, or is it a fundamentally different configuration?
- A key evidentiary question will concern willfulness: The complaint makes specific allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the patents and their underlying applications. The ability of the Plaintiff to substantiate these claims of early notice, and the Defendant's response to them, will be central to determining the potential for enhanced damages.