DCT

0:11-cv-00030

Thermapure Inc v. Temp Air Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:10-cv-04724, N.D. Ill., 07/28/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants transacting business in the district, including offering to sell or selling infringing heat remediation equipment and services to Illinois customers through websites and other channels.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ equipment and services for heat-based pest and contaminant remediation in buildings infringe patents related to methods for killing organisms and pests in enclosures using heated gas.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is "structural pasteurization," a non-chemical process that uses high temperatures to eradicate pests (like insects and rodents), microorganisms (like mold and bacteria), and other contaminants from enclosed spaces.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-05-28 Earliest Priority Date for '812 Patent and '148 Patent
2001-12-11 U.S. Patent No. 6,327,812 Issues
2010-04-06 U.S. Patent No. 7,690,148 Issues
2010-07-28 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,327,812 - “Method Of Killing Organisms And Removal Of Toxins In Enclosures,” issued December 11, 2001

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional pest control methods, such as toxic gas fumigation, as time-consuming, hazardous, and potentially damaging to structures. It also notes that such methods are ineffective against fungi and toxic molds, and that the dead remains of organisms can still pose a health hazard to building occupants (Compl. ¶2; ’812 Patent, col. 1:11-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and kit for sanitizing an enclosure by introducing heated gas (such as air) to raise the internal temperature to a level lethal to a wide variety of organisms. The system uses a plurality of temperature probes to monitor conditions throughout the enclosure in real time, and may use egress ducts with filters to capture and remove the remains of the destroyed organisms, preventing their release into the environment (’812 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:56-68).
  • Technical Importance: The technology offered a non-toxic, single-treatment process to destroy a broad spectrum of contaminants—from insects to fungi—and address the allergenic byproducts, presenting a more comprehensive and safer alternative to chemical fumigation (’812 Patent, col. 2:20-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 4 and 6 (Compl. ¶16).
  • Independent Claim 4 (a kit) includes: at least one ingress and one egress duct; a plurality of temperature probes; means for heating gas to a lethal temperature; means for directing the gas through the ingress duct; means for viewing probe temperatures; means for recording probe temperatures in real time; and a filter in the egress duct (’812 Patent, col. 5:27-49).
  • Independent Claim 6 (a method) includes the steps of: preparing the structure; disposing temperature probes; heating a gas; directing the heated gas into the structure; monitoring the probes in real time; venting the gas from the structure; and filtering the vented gas (’812 Patent, col. 6:5-23).

U.S. Patent No. 7,690,148 - “Method Of Treating For Pests,” issued April 6, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent focuses on the specific problem of pest infestations, such as bed bugs, in multi-unit structures like hotels. Treating an entire building with conventional methods is disruptive and costly. It also notes that pests may simply flee a treated area to an untreated one, complicating eradication (’148 Patent, col. 2:46-55, col. 14:16-36).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for targeted pest control within a "discrete portion" of a multi-unit building (e.g., an infested hotel room and its adjacent rooms). The method involves heating the ambient air within this limited area to a lethal temperature for a sufficient time. The patent also discloses using thermal imaging to identify and seal pest entry points and, for certain pests, spraying with silica air gel to weaken them prior to heating (’148 Patent, col. 5:11-20, col. 14:37-65).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a commercially practical approach for managing pest outbreaks in hospitality and residential settings, allowing for focused, non-toxic treatment that minimizes disruption to the rest of the building (’148 Patent, col. 14:16-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 9 (Compl. ¶17).
  • Independent Claim 9 (a method) includes the steps of: determining a discrete infested portion of a multi-unit building; heating the air in that portion to between 110°F and 400°F to kill the insects; and "spraying the scorpions and other arachnoids with silica air gel" (’148 Patent, col. 16:45-53).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses "heat technology remediation equipment and services" offered by the Defendants (Compl. ¶¶15, 16). No specific product models or service tiers are identified.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants make, use, sell, or offer services and equipment that employ heat to remediate structures, and that these activities meet all the elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶16, 17). It provides URLs to Defendants' websites, which allegedly advertise such heat remediation and filtering products and services (Compl. ¶¶18-24). The large number and variety of defendants—including equipment sellers, service franchisors, and local service providers—suggests the accused technology is part of a substantial commercial market (Compl. ¶¶5-13). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or provide a detailed mapping of accused functionalities to claim elements. It makes general allegations that the Defendants' "heat technology remediation services which include all elements of such claims" infringe the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶16, 17). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-chart-based analysis.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • ’812 Patent:
      • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges infringement by a diverse group of defendants. A central question will be whether the plaintiff can demonstrate that every accused service or equipment "kit" practices all elements of the asserted claims. For method claim 6, this raises the question of whether all accused services perform the specific combination of heating, real-time monitoring, venting, and filtering as claimed (’812 Patent, col. 6:5-23). For kit claim 4, it raises the question of whether Defendants provide a kit containing all recited components, including both a "means for viewing" and a distinct "means for recording... in real time" (’812 Patent, col. 5:39-43).
    • ’148 Patent:
      • Technical Questions: A primary dispute will likely concern claim 9’s requirement of "spraying the scorpions and other arachnoids with silica air gel" (’148 Patent, col. 16:52-53). The complaint accuses general "heat technology remediation services," which are often marketed for bed bugs or mold. This raises a significant question of fact: do the accused services, as broadly alleged, actually include this specific spraying step, particularly when the target pests are not scorpions or arachnoids?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • ’812 Patent:

    • The Term: "means for recording the temperatures of said indicating probes in real time" (Claim 4)
    • Context and Importance: This term, framed in means-plus-function format, will likely be construed as limited to the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification and their equivalents. The scope of this term is critical for determining whether the equipment used or sold by Defendants infringes the kit claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that sensors may be wired to a "console 14 which displays and records the temperature" and that typical sensors are "connected to a computer and/or a strip chart recorder" (’812 Patent, col. 2:60-68). A plaintiff may argue this disclosure supports a broad range of modern digital data-logging and storage devices as structural equivalents.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the disclosed structure is limited to a "computer" or a "strip chart recorder" and their direct equivalents, potentially excluding systems that only provide a transient display without creating a persistent, time-stamped record.

  • ’148 Patent:

    • The Term: "spraying the scorpions and other arachnoids with silica air gel" (Claim 9)
    • Context and Importance: This is a specific, active step in the method claim. The viability of the infringement claim against providers of general heat remediation services will likely depend on the interpretation and required application of this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its specificity presents a clear potential mismatch with the alleged general-purpose infringement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that, read in the context of the claim's preamble ("killing insects including scorpions and other arachnoids"), the spraying step is only required when the target insects are, in fact, scorpions or arachnoids. This interpretation, however, may conflict with the conjunctive "and" connecting the heating and spraying steps.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of the claim suggests that heating and spraying are both required steps of the method. A defendant would likely argue that any performance of the method must include this specific spraying action to infringe, regardless of the target pest. The specification supports this by describing the spraying of silica air gel as a distinct step to "weaken the pests" before heating (’148 Patent, col. 5:11-14).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that multiple defendants have contributorily infringed or induced infringement by "offering equipment, instruction and/or services through its websites" and at trade shows (Compl. ¶¶ 18-24). This theory suggests Defendants knowingly provide the necessary components and instructions for third parties to practice the patented methods.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendants had "knowledge of at least the '812 patent" and continued to infringe, supporting a claim for willful infringement (Compl. ¶25). The complaint does not specify the source or timing of this alleged knowledge. The willfulness allegation does not explicitly mention the ’148 patent.

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of factual proof: given the complaint's lack of specific technical detail, can the plaintiff introduce evidence demonstrating that the diverse "heat technology remediation services" offered by the numerous defendants consistently practice all of the specific steps and limitations recited in the asserted claims?
  • A central issue for the '148 patent will be one of claim scope and applicability: can the method of claim 9, which explicitly requires "spraying... with silica air gel," be found to read on general-purpose heat remediation services, particularly those targeting pests other than scorpions? The outcome may depend on whether this spraying step is interpreted as a mandatory element for every infringing act.