Foam Solutions LLC v. Vanguard Fire Supply Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Case Name: Foam Solutions, LLC v. Vanguard Fire and Supply Co. d/b/a Vanguard Fire and Security Systems
• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Foam Solutions, LLC (Ohio)
  • Defendant: Vanguard Fire and Supply Co. d/b/a Vanguard Fire and Security Systems (Michigan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Reising Ethington PC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-10538, E.D. Mich., 03/07/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is a Michigan corporation that resides in the district, has a regular and established place of business in the district, and has committed alleged acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s services for testing foam-water fire suppression systems infringe a patent related to a system and method for performing such tests without discharging foam concentrate.
• Technical Context: Foam-based fire suppression systems require periodic testing to ensure they correctly proportion foam and water, a process governed by industry standards.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of an earlier application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,080,694. The complaint alleges the accused testing service is performed to meet National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 25 standards.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-11-20	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,513,315
2009-04-07	U.S. Patent No. 7,513,315 Issued
2023-03-07	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,513,315 - "System and Method for Testing Foam-Water Fire Fighting And Fire Suppression Systems"

• Issued: April 7, 2009

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that traditional testing of foam-water fire suppression systems is expensive and creates environmental challenges due to the cost of the foam concentrate and the difficulty of disposing of the discharged foam solution (Compl. ¶11; ’315 Patent, col. 2:46-54). Consequently, these critical safety systems are "seldom, if ever, tested" ( Compl. ¶10; ’315 Patent, col. 2:50-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a test apparatus and method that connects to a foam-water system to enable testing using only water. The apparatus includes a means to bypass the foam concentrate source and a flow meter to measure the flow of water through the line that would normally carry the foam concentrate (’315 Patent, Abstract). By comparing this "water equivalency" flow rate data to data from an initial "acceptance test" (when the system was known to be working correctly), operators can verify the functionality of the system's proportioning valve without expending or discharging costly foam (’315 Patent, col. 9:6-36). Figure 1 of the patent illustrates an embodiment where a test stand (40) with a flow meter (42) is connected to both the main water supply line (14) and the foam supply line (22) downstream of a bypass valve (24) (’315 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a cost-effective and environmentally sound method for verifying the operational readiness of foam-water fire suppression systems, facilitating compliance with safety standards such as NFPA 25 (’315 Patent, col. 2:28-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a system claim) and 10 (a method claim) (’Compl. ¶22).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a test system comprising, in essence:
  • A foam-water proportioning system
  • Means for conducting an acceptance test to characterize the proportioning valve's performance
  • A test apparatus with (i) a means for bypassing the foam concentrate source, (ii) a first test line connecting the water supply to the foam supply line, and (iii) a first flow meter to measure water flow through that test line
  • Means for comparing the acceptance test performance with the water flow measured by the test apparatus
• Independent Claim 10 recites a test method comprising, in essence:
  • Accessing a foam-water proportioning system
  • Utilizing means for conducting an acceptance test
  • Connecting a test apparatus with a bypass and a flow meter
  • Activating the test apparatus to direct water through the first test line and flow meter
  • Recording the water flow rates
  • Comparing the proportioning valve's performance (from the acceptance test) with the recorded water flow rates

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Defendant’s service for "Water Equivalency Testing on Foam Proportioning Equipment" (Compl. ¶19).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges Defendant advertises and performs testing services for fire suppression systems to help clients meet NFPA 25 compliance standards (Compl. ¶18-19). Specifically, the "Water Equivalency Testing" service is described on Defendant's website as a test that "will be performed with water only" to "ensure you have the right proportions of foam concentrate and water" (Compl. ¶19). A screenshot from the Defendant's website describes the "Water Equivalency Testing on Foam Proportioning Equipment" service (Compl. ¶19, p. 7). The stated purpose is to establish a benchmark flow rate and subsequently test with water only, which the complaint alleges utilizes the system and method of the ’315 Patent (Compl. ¶19-21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references exemplary claim charts in Exhibits B and C, which were not provided with the filing. Therefore, the infringement theory is summarized below in prose.

The complaint alleges that Defendant's "Water Equivalency Testing" service infringes at least Claim 1 (system) and Claim 10 (method) of the ’315 Patent (Compl. ¶20-21). The infringement theory appears to be that the equipment Defendant uses to provide its service constitutes the "test apparatus" of Claim 1, and the steps Defendant's technicians perform constitute the "test method" of Claim 10 (Compl. ¶20-21). The complaint points to Defendant's own marketing materials, which describe a testing process using "water only" to verify the correct "proportions of foam concentrate and water," as evidence that Defendant practices the patented invention (Compl. ¶19). This alleged infringement is asserted to be either literal or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶22).

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A primary question will be what specific hardware and procedures Defendant uses to conduct its "Water Equivalency Testing." The complaint does not detail the accused testing rig. Discovery will be needed to determine if Defendant's equipment includes a "first flow meter" connected between the water and foam supply lines and a "means for bypassing" the foam concentrate as required by the claims.
• Scope Questions: The claims require "means for comparing" the results of a water-only test with data from a prior "acceptance test." A point of contention may be whether Defendant's service includes this comparison step and, if so, whether the way it is performed falls within the scope of the claim term. For example, does a technician's manual comparison of flow-rate readings satisfy this limitation?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "means for bypassing the at least one source of foam concentrate" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term, framed in means-plus-function format, is central to defining the physical structure of the infringing apparatus. Its construction will be limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and its equivalents. The infringement analysis will hinge on whether the equipment used by Defendant is structurally equivalent to the disclosed means.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The functional language itself—"means for bypassing"—is broad.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses the corresponding structure for this function as a "shut-off valve 24, check valve, or other means" located on the foam supply line ('315 Patent, col. 6:7-10). A court will likely construe this term as being limited to these disclosed valve structures and their equivalents.

Term: "means for comparing the performance of the proportioning valve..." (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it recites a comparison step that is fundamental to the patent's testing logic. As a means-plus-function term, its scope depends on the corresponding structure in the specification, which appears to be thin, potentially raising issues of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this function is performed by a technician who manually records and compares numerical data, thereby not requiring a specific, automated hardware or software "means."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the act of comparing data from the "water equivalency test" to "acceptance test data" ('315 Patent, col. 9:27-36). However, it does not appear to disclose a specific corresponding structure (e.g., a processor, a software module, or a specific calculating device) for performing this comparison. This lack of disclosed structure could lead a court to find the term indefinite or to construe it narrowly based on the actions described.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes conclusory allegations of induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶23-24). However, it does not allege specific facts to support these claims, such as Defendant providing its testing equipment to customers with instructions to perform the infringing method themselves. The factual allegations focus on direct infringement by Defendant's own performance of the testing service.

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on "information and belief" that Defendant had "prior knowledge of the '315 Patent" (Compl. ¶26). The complaint does not provide a factual basis for this alleged knowledge, such as a cease-and-desist letter or prior dealings between the parties.

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

• A central evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what is the specific hardware configuration of Defendant’s testing equipment and what are the precise steps of its "Water Equivalency Testing" service? The outcome will depend heavily on facts established in discovery, as the complaint relies on high-level marketing descriptions rather than technical details of the accused service.
• A core issue will be one of claim construction and scope: how will the court construe the means-plus-function terms "means for bypassing" and, critically, "means for comparing"? The viability of the infringement claim will depend on whether the equipment and methods Defendant actually uses are found to be structurally and functionally equivalent to the limited disclosures in the ’315 patent’s specification.