DCT
6:22-cv-06126
Vertiv Corp v. OptiCool Tech LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Vertiv Corporation (Ohio)
- Defendant: OptiCool Technologies, LLC (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ward Greenberg Heller & Reidy LLP
- Case Identification: 6:22-cv-06126, W.D.N.Y., 03/17/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is a New York company with its principal place of business in the Western District of New York, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s data center cooling systems infringe a patent related to a two-cycle cooling architecture that uses a pumped two-phase refrigerant.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns high-density cooling for data centers, a critical function for maintaining the operational integrity and efficiency of digital infrastructure.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had actual notice of the patent-in-suit as early as February 2013. It further alleges that Defendant subsequently filed two declaratory judgment actions for non-infringement, one of which was voluntarily dismissed by Defendant and the other dismissed by the court with prejudice against Defendant. This history is presented to support allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-12-05 | '565 Patent Priority Date |
| 2012-09-11 | '565 Patent Issue Date |
| 2013-02-01 | Alleged date of Defendant's first notice of the '565 Patent (approx.) |
| 2013-07-01 | Defendant filed first declaratory judgment action (approx.) |
| 2022-03-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,261,565 - Cooling System for High Density Heat Load
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the challenges of cooling high-density heat loads, such as computer rooms, using conventional direct expansion (DX) systems. These systems are said to require "rather sophisticated controls" and "excessive floor space," while the use of water for cooling near electronics creates a risk of damage from leaks (’565 Patent, col. 1:15-39; col. 2:50-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a cooling system architecture comprising two thermally connected cooling cycles. The first cycle is not a traditional vapor-compression system; instead, it uses a pump to circulate a volatile, two-phase working fluid (e.g., a refrigerant) to an air-to-fluid heat exchanger located at the heat load. As the fluid absorbs heat, it evaporates. This vapor then flows to a fluid-to-fluid heat exchanger where it is cooled and condensed back into a liquid by a second, separate cooling cycle (e.g., a building's chilled water system). The condensed liquid then returns to the pump to repeat the cycle (’565 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This pumped two-phase refrigerant approach aims to combine the high heat-transfer capacity of phase-change cooling with the simplicity of a pumped liquid loop, thereby increasing cooling efficiency and capacity per square foot while avoiding the need for complex controls and compressors within the primary cooling loop (’565 Patent, col. 5:30-43).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 3, 4, and 5.
- Independent Claim 1:
- a two-phase working fluid;
- a pump configured to increase the pressure of the working fluid without substantially increasing its enthalpy;
- an air-to-fluid heat exchanger in fluid communication with the pump and thermal communication with the heat load;
- a fluid-to-fluid heat exchanger with a first fluid path (for the two-phase fluid) and a second fluid path, in thermal communication;
- a second heat transfer system (comprising a second portion of the fluid-to-fluid heat exchanger, a single-phase working fluid, and a pump);
- wherein air passing through the air-to-fluid heat exchanger causes the two-phase fluid to change phase from liquid to gas; and
- a controller coupled to the second fluid path, configured to prevent condensation by controlling heat transfer to maintain the two-phase fluid's temperature above the air's dew point.
- Independent Claim 3: This claim is structurally similar to claim 1 but recites a cooling system for transferring heat to an "environment." It requires:
- A first cooling cycle with a two-phase fluid, a pump, an air-to-fluid heat exchanger, and a "second heat exchanger."
- A second cooling cycle, thermally connected to the first, comprising a "chilled water system in thermal communication with the environment."
- The second cooling cycle is controlled to maintain the temperature of the two-phase fluid above the dew point of the air at the air-to-fluid heat exchanger.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims, including claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 21 (Compl. ¶35).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s “RPW-Based Systems” (Compl. ¶33). These systems are comprised of several components, including "Active Heat Extractor (AHX)" cooling units, "Cool Door System (CDS)" and "Cool Row System (CRS)" housings for the AHX units, "Refrigerant Pump Systems (RPS)," and a "Refrigerant Distribution Network (RDN)" (Compl. ¶¶21-24, 28).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Defendant's systems are "refrigerant-based, close-coupled cooling solutions designed to support a wide variety of data center applications" (Compl. ¶20). Functionally, the RPS units are alleged to circulate a refrigerant (R-134a) to AHX units mounted on or near data center cabinets (Compl. ¶¶21, 24, 27). The AHX units contain an evaporator coil and fans that draw hot air from the cabinet across the coil, causing the refrigerant to undergo a phase change (Compl. ¶21). The heated refrigerant vapor returns to the RPS, where a fluid-to-fluid heat exchanger transfers the heat to the building's chilled water system, condensing the refrigerant back to a liquid for recirculation by a pump (Compl. ¶¶25-26). The complaint states that Defendant directly competes with Plaintiff's own patented cooling systems (Compl. ¶19). A visual from the complaint depicts the Defendant's "Active Heat Extractor (AHX)" unit, which allegedly functions as an air-to-fluid heat exchanger (Compl. ¶21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- ’565 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a two-phase working fluid | The RPW-Based Systems use R-134a, a commercially available two-phase hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant. | ¶40 | col. 2:48-51 |
| a pump configured to increase the pressure of the working fluid without substantially increasing the enthalpy of the working fluid | The RPW pump unit increases the pressure of the liquid refrigerant to circulate it to the Active Heat Extractors without substantially adding heat or changing its volume. | ¶41 | col. 8:42-45 |
| an air-to-fluid heat exchanger in fluid communication with the pump and in thermal communication with the heat load | The Active Heat Extractor contains a heat exchanger (evaporator coil) that receives pumped refrigerant and has fans that draw heated air from electronics equipment (the heat load) across it. | ¶42 | col. 2:64-67 |
| a fluid-to-fluid heat exchanger having a first fluid path...and a second fluid path...in thermal communication with one another | The RPW unit includes a plate and frame fluid-to-fluid heat exchanger. It has a first path for refrigerant returning from the AHX units and a second path for chilled water from the building's system. | ¶43 | col. 3:15-25 |
| a second heat transfer system...comprising: a second portion of the fluid-to-fluid heat exchanger; a single phase working fluid; and a pump | The accused systems include the building's chilled water system, which uses water or a water/glycol mixture (a single-phase fluid) and is pumped through the second fluid path of the heat exchanger. A schematic shows the relationship between the pump unit and other system components (Compl. ¶12). | ¶45 | col. 3:50-65 |
| wherein air passing through the air-to-fluid heat exchanger causes at least a portion of the two-phase working fluid to change phase from a liquid to a gas | Heat from air drawn across the AHX's heat exchanger causes the R-134a refrigerant to undergo a phase change. | ¶46 | col. 8:49-53 |
| a controller operatively coupled to...the second fluid path and configured to prevent condensation...by controlling the amount of heat transferred | The systems allegedly include a dew point sensor and a controller that maintains the refrigerant temperature above the air's dew point by controlling heat transfer to the chilled water in the second fluid path. An overall system diagram shows the relationship between the pump, heat extractors, and distribution network (Compl. ¶32). | ¶47 | col. 9:51-59 |
- ’565 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 3)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 3) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first cooling cycle containing a two-phase working fluid | The RPW-Based Systems' refrigerant loop, using R-134a, constitutes the first cooling cycle. | ¶¶40, 48 | col. 2:42-44 |
| a pump configured to increase the pressure...without substantially increasing the enthalpy | The RPW pump unit allegedly performs this function. | ¶41 | col. 7:1-4 |
| an air-to-fluid heat exchanger in fluid communication with the pump and in thermal communication with the heat load | The Active Heat Extractor is alleged to be this component. | ¶42 | col. 7:5-7 |
| a second heat exchanger having a first fluid path...and a second fluid path comprising a portion of the second cooling cycle | The RPW unit's plate and frame heat exchanger is identified as the "second heat exchanger," with the first path for refrigerant and the second path for chilled water. | ¶¶50-52 | col. 7:8-12 |
| wherein the second cooling cycle comprises a chilled water system in thermal communication with the environment | The building's chilled water system, which rejects heat to the environment, is alleged to be the second cooling cycle. | ¶49 | col. 7:16-19 |
| wherein the second cooling cycle is controlled to maintain a temperature of the two-phase working fluid...above a dew point | The control system is alleged to control heat transfer to the chilled water to maintain the refrigerant temperature above the dew point of the air at the AHX. | ¶53 | col. 7:19-24 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: A central question may be whether Defendant's RPW pump, as it operates in the accused systems, meets the claim limitation of increasing pressure "without substantially increasing the enthalpy of the working fluid." The degree of enthalpy change and the meaning of "substantially" will likely be a focus of technical expert testimony.
- Scope Question: The claims require a "controller...configured to prevent condensation" by controlling heat transfer in the second fluid path. The analysis may turn on whether the alleged control logic in the accused systems, which monitors the dew point, performs the specific control function recited in the claim and is "operatively coupled" in the manner the claim requires.
- System Boundary Question: Claim 1 recites a "second heat transfer system" that itself includes "a pump," while the infringement allegation relies on the building's overall chilled water system to meet this limitation. A dispute could arise over whether the components of the building's infrastructure can be considered part of the claimed "cooling system" as sold or offered for sale by the Defendant.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a pump configured to increase the pressure of the working fluid without substantially increasing the enthalpy of the working fluid" (Claim 1).
Context and Importance: This term is critical for distinguishing the claimed invention from a conventional vapor-compression cycle, which uses a compressor that significantly increases both the pressure and enthalpy of the working fluid. The infringement case rests on the accused device having a "pump" that performs this function, not a "compressor." Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a negative limitation defining what the component does not do.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification distinguishes the invention from a "vapor compression refrigeration system" and explicitly states the first cycle "uses the pump 20 instead of a compressor" (’565 Patent, col. 2:58-59). This could support an interpretation where any device that is not a compressor and primarily adds pressure to a liquid-phase fluid meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 3, a pressure-enthalpy diagram, depicts the pumping process (leg 80) as a near-vertical line, indicating a pressure increase with almost no change in enthalpy. This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific, measurable, and minimal increase in enthalpy, beyond simply being "not a compressor."
The Term: "a controller operatively coupled to at least the second fluid path and configured to prevent condensation" (Claim 1).
Context and Importance: This limitation defines how the system achieves a key benefit: avoiding condensation on cold surfaces near sensitive electronics. The dispute will likely involve how directly the controller must act on the second fluid path and what level of functionality is required to be "configured to prevent condensation."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the cooling system "controls the either the chilled water or the vapor compression system so that the fluid going to the...heat exchangers 30 is always above the dewpoint" (’565 Patent, col. 6:10-15). This could support a reading where any control mechanism that achieves this outcome, regardless of its specific algorithm or hardware, meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the controller to work "by controlling the amount of heat transferred to the second fluid path." This could support a narrower interpretation requiring a specific control loop that directly modulates flow or temperature in the second cycle for the express purpose of dew point management, as opposed to a system that incidentally achieves it through general temperature regulation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant actively induces infringement by its customers and partners under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (Compl. ¶71). The alleged inducing acts include providing components with knowledge and intent of their infringing assembly and use, as well as furnishing "technical support, specifications, user guides, manuals and other documentation and instructions" for assembling and operating the systems (Compl. ¶73). Contributory infringement under § 271(c) is also pleaded, alleging the supplied components are material, especially adapted for the infringing use, and not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶76).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the ’565 Patent since at least February 2013 (Compl. ¶79). This allegation is supported by references to two prior declaratory judgment actions filed by Defendant concerning the ’565 Patent, which allegedly demonstrate both knowledge and a subsequent "reckless disregard of Vertiv's patent rights" after the actions were dismissed (Compl. ¶¶72, 79).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of technical function: Does Defendant's RPW pump operate "without substantially increasing the enthalpy" of the refrigerant, as required to distinguish it from a conventional compressor, or is the operational difference merely one of degree that falls outside the claim's scope?
- A second key question will be one of claim scope and system boundaries: Can the limitations of a "second heat transfer system," including "a pump," be met by incorporating a building's general chilled water infrastructure, or must the claimed system be a more self-contained unit as sold by Defendant?
- Finally, a critical legal question will be willfulness: Given the extensive pre-suit history alleged in the complaint, including Defendant's prior unsuccessful declaratory judgment actions, what evidence will demonstrate whether Defendant's continued alleged infringement was objectively and subjectively reckless?