Greenearth Cleaning LLC v. Cameron Park Fresh Cleaners Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: GreenEarth® Cleaning, L.L.C. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Cameron Park Fresh Cleaners, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Post Anderson Layton Heffner, LLP
• Case Identification: 4:17-cv-00516, W.D. Mo., 06/23/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurring in the district and a contractual agreement between the parties specifying venue in the court.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, a former licensee, infringes patents related to dry cleaning processes using liquid silicone solvents by continuing to use the patented processes after the license agreement was terminated for non-payment.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to environmentally friendly alternatives to traditional, and allegedly hazardous, dry cleaning solvents such as perchloroethylene (Perc).
• Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that the parties entered into a license agreement in 2005, which granted Defendant rights to use Plaintiff's patented processes. Plaintiff alleges that after Defendant failed to pay license fees beginning in mid-2015, the license was terminated, converting Defendant’s previously authorized use of the patented technology into alleged infringement.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,942,007 - “Dry Cleaning Method and Solvent,” issued August 24, 1999 (’007 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the dry cleaning industry’s reliance on perchloroethylene (“Perc”), a solvent noted to have "numerous disadvantages to Perc including its toxicity and odor," as well as being a "major health and environmental hazard" ( ’007 Patent, col. 1:32–49).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a dry cleaning method using a different class of solvent: cyclic siloxanes. The process involves immersing and agitating articles in the siloxane solvent, followed by a multi-stage removal and recovery process that includes centrifugal spinning, heating under a partial vacuum, and a final cooling cycle to prevent wrinkling (’007 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This combination of a gentler solvent and a specific process sequence claims to be both environmentally friendly and effective.
• Technical Importance: The invention provided a method for using silicon-based solvents, which are described as hypoallergenic and not causing buildup in clothing, as a viable, fabric-safe, and environmentally conscious alternative to Perc (’007 Patent, col. 2:35–40).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims of the Patents," with a specific reference to the process steps of the ’007 Patent (Compl. ¶66). Claim 1 is the sole independent method claim.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • immersing articles to be dry cleaned in a dry cleaning fluid including a cyclic siloxane composition;
  • agitating the articles in the fluid;
  • removing the fluid from the articles by centrifugal action and by circulating air;
  • maintaining the temperature of the circulating air between 120 to 140 degrees Fahrenheit during removal; and then
  • preventing wrinkling by cooling the articles below 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 5,865,852 - “Dry Cleaning Method and Solvent,” issued February 2, 1999 (’852 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the environmental and toxicity problems associated with Perc, the most widely used dry cleaning solvent at the time (’852 Patent, col. 1:24–27).
• The Patented Solution: This patent discloses a dry cleaning method using a different solvent, Dipropylene Glycol Monomethyl Etheracetate (DPMA), which is noted as not typically suitable for dry cleaning in its pure form (’852 Patent, col. 2:18–24). The patented solution involves modifying the DPMA with a small amount of water and, critically, using a vacuum during the drying cycle to reduce the solvent’s effective flash point, allowing for efficient vaporization and removal at lower temperatures that do not damage garments (’852 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The invention proposed using a less conventional solvent made viable through a specific vacuum-assisted process, representing an alternative technical path away from Perc-based systems (’852 Patent, col. 3:9–14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "the Patents," which by definition includes the ’852 Patent (Compl. ¶8, ¶66). Claim 1 is the primary independent method claim.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • immersing articles in a dry cleaning solvent having Dipropylene Glycol Monomethyl Etheracetate (DPMA);
  • agitating the articles in the DPMA;
  • removing the DPMA from the articles, wherein the articles are subjected to a vacuum to reduce the flash point of the solvent; and
  • vaporizing any remaining solvent.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: Additional Asserted Patents

• U.S. Patent No. 6,063,135, “Dry Cleaning Method and Solvent/Detergent Mixture,” issued May 16, 2000

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a dry cleaning method combining a siloxane-based solvent with a compatible organo-silicone-based detergent. The detergent is designed to provide hydrophilicity to the otherwise hydrophobic solvent, enabling the removal of water-soluble soils from fabrics (’135 Patent, col. 3:28–35).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1 and 16 appear to be the independent claims.
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant’s continued use of the liquid silicone dry cleaning process, which could be construed to include the use of compatible detergents (Compl. ¶66).

• U.S. Patent No. 6,042,618, “Dry Cleaning Method and Solvent,” issued March 28, 2000

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed at a dry cleaning method using a cyclic siloxane solvent composition. It details a multi-step process including agitation, centrifugal removal of the solvent, and a drying phase that involves circulating heated air to vaporize remaining solvent, followed by cooling (’618 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1 and 17 appear to be the independent claims.
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant’s continued use of a liquid silicone dry cleaning process (Compl. ¶66).

• U.S. Patent No. 6,056,789, “Closed Loop Dry Cleaning Method and Solvent,” issued May 2, 2000

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on a "closed loop" system for dry cleaning with a cyclic siloxane solvent. The method is designed to recapture and reuse nearly all of the solvent vapor, minimizing environmental release and improving operational efficiency (’789 Patent, col. 1:11–15; Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 appears to be the sole independent claim.
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant’s continued use of a liquid silicone dry cleaning process, which is often performed in closed-loop machines (Compl. ¶66).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is the dry cleaning process or service offered by Defendant Cameron Park Fresh Cleaners, Inc. (Compl. ¶3, ¶66).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Defendant, a dry cleaning business, performs a process that uses "liquid silicone as a drycleaning solvent" (Compl. ¶64, ¶66). The specific functionality accused of infringement is the performance of "steps 1 through 7 of the 5,942,007 Patent" (Compl. ¶66). The complaint frames Defendant's business as that of a former member of Plaintiff's "GreenEarth® Affiliate Network" that continued to use the licensed technology after its rights were terminated (Compl. ¶55–56).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’007 Patent Infringement Allegations

’852 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement of the ’852 Patent in a claim chart format. The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

The complaint alleges that Defendant infringes "the Patents," a group that explicitly includes the ’852 Patent, by "continuing to utilize liquid silicone as a drycleaning solvent" (Compl. ¶8, ¶66). This allegation presents a direct conflict with the claims of the ’852 Patent, which are explicitly limited to a method using "Dipropylene Glycol Monomethyl Etheracetate (DPMA)" as the solvent (’852 Patent, claim 1).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Mismatch: A primary question for the court regarding the ’852 Patent will be whether a claim for infringement is plausible when the complaint's factual allegations (use of "liquid silicone") appear to directly contradict a central element of the asserted patent's claims (use of "DPMA").
  • Evidentiary Question: Regarding the ’007 Patent, the complaint alleges infringement based on "information and belief" (Compl. ¶66). A key question will be what factual evidence Plaintiff will produce to demonstrate that Defendant's specific dry cleaning process meets every limitation of the asserted claims, including the precise temperature and cooling steps.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "cyclic siloxane composition" (’007 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the chemical solvent at the heart of the patented method. Its scope is critical to determining whether the solvent allegedly used by the Defendant falls within the claims.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the term as a "fluid class of cyclic siloxanes," specifically mentioning "octamethyl-cyclotetrasiloxane (tetramer) and decamethyl-cyclopentasiloxane (pentamer)" as examples, suggesting the term covers a category of chemicals (’007 Patent, col. 3:6–11).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description identifies a "preferred combination" of "80% tetramer and 20% pentamer by weight" (’007 Patent, col. 3:40–42). A party could argue that the claims should be construed more narrowly in light of this specific disclosure.

• The Term: "a vacuum" (’852 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The use of a vacuum to lower the solvent's flash point is a key feature of the claimed invention. The degree of pressure reduction required by this term will be central to any infringement analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language recites only "a vacuum by reducing pressure," which could be construed broadly to mean any pressure below atmospheric pressure.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific embodiment with "a negative pressure of at least 500 millimeters of mercury" (’852 Patent, col. 3:58–59). A party may argue that this specific disclosure should inform or limit the meaning of the general term "a vacuum" used in the claim.

VI. Willful Infringement

• Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief requests enhanced damages "due to the willful and deliberate nature of the infringement" (Compl. p. 29, ¶(g)). The complaint alleges that Defendant was a licensee from 2005 until its license was terminated for non-payment (Compl. ¶14, ¶55). Plaintiff alleges it sent Defendant a cease-and-desist letter on January 31, 2017, notifying Defendant that "it had no right to continue use of liquid silicone as a dry cleaning solvent" (Compl. ¶54). The willfulness allegation appears to be based on Defendant’s alleged continued infringement after having actual knowledge of the patents through the prior license and after receiving express notice of termination and infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of technical and evidentiary alignment: What proof will be offered to show that Defendant’s dry cleaning process, as actually practiced, meets every specific step of the asserted method claims, particularly the temperature ranges and cooling cycles recited in the ’007 Patent?
• A second central issue will be a question of claim scope and pleading sufficiency: Can Plaintiff's infringement claim for the ’852 Patent proceed when its own complaint alleges the use of a "liquid silicone" solvent, a substance seemingly outside the plain language of that patent’s claims, which require "DPMA"?
• A key question for damages will be one of willfulness: Does the Defendant's alleged continued use of the patented process after the termination of its license and receipt of a cease-and-desist letter rise to the level of willful infringement that would justify an award of enhanced damages?