DCT
2:25-cv-02129
NSX Operating Co LLC v. Spring Coating Systems Americas Corp
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: NSX Operating Co., LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Spring Coating Systems-Americas Corp. (Pennsylvania)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ballard Spahr LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-02129, E.D. Pa., 04/28/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because the Defendant is incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and therefore resides in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ECOWASH line of flexographic platewash solvents infringes a patent related to low-odor chemical compositions for such solvents.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns chemical formulations used in flexographic printing to wash photopolymer printing plates, with a focus on creating solvents that are effective, low in odor, and less hazardous than prior art alternatives.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of infringement via a cease and desist communication on or about February 18, 2025, approximately two months before filing suit. This allegation forms part of the basis for the willfulness claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-08-22 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,897,921 |
| 2018-02-20 | U.S. Patent No. 9,897,921 Issued |
| Post 2018-02-20 | Alleged Launch of Accused ECOWASH Product Line |
| 2025-02-18 | Plaintiff allegedly sent cease and desist letter to Defendant |
| 2025-04-28 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,897,921 - "Compositions Comprising Mineral Spirits and Methods Related Thereto", issued 02/20/2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes problems with solvents used to develop flexographic printing plates. Prior art solvents, such as those based on terpene hydrocarbons or mixed aromatics, were described as having "intense odors," being potentially hazardous, and causing the cured portions of the printing plates to soften and swell, which degrades image quality (’921 Patent, col. 1:45-56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve these problems through a novel solvent composition. The solution combines mineral spirits (particularly those with low aromatic content), diisopropylbenzene (DIPB), and one or more alcohols from a specific list (’921 Patent, col. 2:6-11; Abstract). The patent notes that DIPB, a byproduct of another manufacturing process, is less toxic and has a "very mild and acceptable odor" compared to other common solvents, making it a key component of the low-odor formulation (’921 Patent, col. 6:26-44).
- Technical Importance: This technology aimed to provide the flexographic printing industry with a developing solvent that was safer for workers, less odorous, and less environmentally hazardous, while still effectively producing high-quality printing plates (’921 Patent, col. 2:6-11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 10. The essential elements are:
- A composition comprising:
- (a) mineral spirits having an aromatic content of less than 2 wt %;
- (b) diisopropylbenzene; and
- (c) at least one alcohol selected from a specific Markush group that includes benzyl alcohol;
- wherein dipropylene glycol methyl ether is absent.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 20, which add further limitations regarding the aromatic content of the mineral spirits and the specific weight percentages of the components (Compl. ¶33).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant’s "ECOWASH" line of flexographic platewash solvents (Compl. ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that ECOWASH is a solvent used for washing flexographic printing plates (Compl. ¶¶20-21). Based on Defendant's alleged advertising, the product is marketed with features that parallel the benefits described in the ’921 patent, including being a "low odor," "safer solvent" with "faster drying times" that provides "better definition and less dot loss" (Compl. ¶¶22-25). The complaint alleges, on information and belief, a specific formulation for ECOWASH comprising Isopar L (an odorless mineral spirit), diisopropylbenzene, and benzyl alcohol, and alleges specific weight percentages for these components (Compl. ¶¶27-30).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’921 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A composition comprising: (a) mineral spirits having an aromatic content of less than 2 wt %; | The complaint alleges ECOWASH contains Isopar L, which it identifies as an "odorless mineral spirit having an aromatic content of less than 0.1 wt %." | ¶27 | col. 4:46-54 |
| (b) diisopropylbenzene; | ECOWASH allegedly contains diisopropylbenzene. | ¶27 | col. 6:25-34 |
| (c) at least one alcohol, wherein the at least one alcohol is selected from tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol, 2-ethoxy-ethanol, benzyl alcohol... | ECOWASH allegedly contains benzyl alcohol, which is an alcohol recited in the claim's Markush group. | ¶27 | col. 7:31-34 |
| wherein dipropylene glycol methyl ether is absent. | The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that ECOWASH does not contain dipropylene glycol methyl ether. | ¶27 | col. 15:24-30 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The negative limitation "wherein dipropylene glycol methyl ether is absent" raises a potential claim construction dispute. The question is whether "absent" requires that the substance was not intentionally added as a component, or whether it requires the complete absence of the substance, even as a trace impurity that may be present in the commercial-grade raw materials.
- Technical Questions: The infringement allegations regarding the specific chemical composition of ECOWASH are made "on information and belief" (Compl. ¶27). A central evidentiary question will be whether discovery and chemical analysis of the accused products confirm the presence of the claimed components in the alleged proportions (e.g., mineral spirits with <0.1 wt% aromatic content, approx. 28 wt% diisopropylbenzene, and approx. 20 wt% benzyl alcohol) (Compl. ¶¶27-30).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "absent"
- Context and Importance: This negative limitation is dispositive. If the accused ECOWASH product is found to contain "dipropylene glycol methyl ether," then claim 10 is not infringed. Practitioners may focus on this term because the standard for "absence" (e.g., not intentionally added vs. not detectable at any level) is a frequent subject of litigation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (e.g., not intentionally added): A party could argue that in the context of a chemical formulation, "absent" is commonly understood by a person of ordinary skill to mean the component is not part of the recipe, distinguishing it from unavoidable impurities. The patent does not appear to provide explicit language to support this.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (e.g., complete physical absence): A party could argue for the plain and ordinary meaning of "absent," suggesting that any detectable amount, however small, would negate infringement. The lack of a specific definition in the specification leaves this open to argument.
The Term: "about"
- Context and Importance: Several asserted dependent claims (e.g., 14, 17, 20) recite specific component amounts using the word "about" (e.g., "about 49 wt %"). The complaint alleges ECOWASH contains these exact percentages (Compl. ¶¶28-30). The scope of "about" is therefore critical to determining infringement of these dependent claims, as the actual measured composition may be close but not identical to the recited values.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification includes boilerplate language stating that when values are expressed as approximations, "it will be understood that the particular value forms another aspect" and that "endpoints of each of the ranges are significant" (’921 Patent, col. 4:10-24). This language may support a more flexible reading.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent includes a table of exemplary formulations (Table 2) with precise, non-approximate weight percentages (e.g., 49%, 28%, 20%) (’921 Patent, col. 13:10-17). A party could argue this demonstrates that the inventors viewed these percentages with precision, suggesting "about" should be construed narrowly.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that Defendant encourages infringement by its customers through advertising, promotional materials, product documentation, and technical support that instruct on the use of ECOWASH (Compl. ¶¶38-39).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement after receiving a cease and desist letter on or around February 18, 2025, which allegedly provided pre-suit knowledge of the patent and infringement (Compl. ¶¶31, 36).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: will discovery and expert analysis confirm that the accused ECOWASH products have the specific chemical composition—including the low aromatic content, the presence of the claimed components, and the absence of the excluded ether—that is alleged in the complaint and required by the asserted claims?
- The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: how will the court construe the negative limitation "absent"? Whether this term means "not intentionally added as a formulated component" or "not detectable at any level" could be dispositive for the infringement analysis.
- Finally, a key question for several dependent claims will be the scope of approximation: how narrowly will the term "about," as applied to weight percentages, be interpreted in light of the patent's specific examples versus its general language on ranges?