DCT

1:02-cv-01111

Boynton v. Headwaters Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:02-cv-01111, W.D. Tenn., 10/16/2003
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on a substantial portion of the underlying acts occurring in Paris, Tennessee, and the residency of individual defendants Davidson and Hoover within the judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs, investors in a venture to commercialize a patented technology, allege that Defendants conspired to fraudulently transfer rights to the patent and divert its profits, and seek to recover ownership of the patent and associated damages.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to the agglomeration of coal fines, a process for converting small, often-wasted coal particles into larger, more usable and valuable pellets.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint discloses that a prior federal lawsuit filed by the Plaintiffs ("Adtech Federal Action") was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint alleges that the prior court's order found that a 1991 assignment of the patent to the Plaintiffs' original corporate entity ("First Adtech") was ineffective because the corporation had already been administratively dissolved. This finding is central to the current complaint's theories regarding patent ownership and standing.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1987-11-23 "First Adtech" incorporated.
1991-04-01 "First Adtech" administratively dissolved.
1991-07-29 Inventor Davidson purports to assign patent rights to the dissolved "First Adtech."
1991-08-09 Earliest priority date of the '629 Patent (Application Filing Date).
1993-08-24 U.S. Patent No. 5,238,629 issues.
1998-05-14 "Second Adtech," an entity with an identical name to the first, is incorporated.
1998-10-01 Alleged fraudulent transaction between Davidson and Covol (approximate date).
1999-05-13 Plaintiffs allegedly first learned of the 1998 transaction.
2000-08-21 Prior "Adtech Federal Action" is filed.
2001-08-28 Prior "Adtech Federal Action" is dismissed.
2003-10-16 First Amended Complaint is filed in the present action.

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,238,629 ("the '629 Patent"), Process of Coal Agglomeration, issued August 24, 1993.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the long-standing industry problem of "coal fines"—small coal particles generated during processing and transport that are traditionally regarded as waste by-products due to handling difficulties and poor economics of reprocessing ('629 Patent, col. 1:8-14). Existing methods for recovery were described as unattractive due to high energy costs or limited applicability ('629 Patent, col. 1:42-48).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a process for making these fines economically useful. The process involves slurrying the coal fines with an "agglomerating liquid," which consists of a reagent (such as an aromatic tertiary amine) and a solvent ('629 Patent, Abstract). This chemical treatment makes the fine particles "amenable to compressible agglomeration," allowing them to be compressed into solid, stable pellets ('629 Patent, col. 10:41-44). The process, illustrated in a flow chart, also includes steps for efficiently recovering and reusing the chemical liquid, a key economic feature ('629 Patent, FIG. 1; col. 2:65-68).
  • Technical Importance: The process claims a significant economic advantage over prior methods by requiring low energy input and achieving very high (up to 99%) recovery of the chemical reagents for recycling ('629 Patent, col. 2:40-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not assert specific claims against an infringing product. However, an analysis of the patent's broadest independent claim, Claim 1, illustrates the scope of the technology at issue.
  • The essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
    • slurrying the coal fines with an effective amount of an "agglomerating liquid" comprising a reagent chemical (from specific organic amine classes) and a solvent;
    • mixing and reacting the liquid with the coal fines until they are "made amenable to compressible agglomeration";
    • removing the coal fines from the slurry;
    • drying the coal fines;
    • recovering and retaining the reagent and solvent for reuse; and
    • compressibly agglomerating the fines to produce the final product.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint does not identify a specific accused product, method, or service.
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not allege infringement by a specific instrumentality. Instead, it alleges that Defendant Headwaters (then Covol) entered into a transaction to purchase the rights to the '629 Patent and its related proprietary information (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 23(A)). The complaint further alleges that Headwaters/Covol intentionally failed to commercialize the patent in order to benefit its own, competing technologies (Compl. ¶26). These allegations focus on the alleged fraudulent acquisition and subsequent suppression of the patented technology rather than its infringing use.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain specific infringement allegations or a claim chart. The causes of action are for fraud, civil conspiracy, conversion, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, all stemming from the disputed ownership and control of the '629 Patent, rather than direct infringement by an accused product.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

While no infringement is alleged, a dispute over the '629 Patent's scope would likely center on the following terms from its independent claims.

  • The Term: "agglomerating liquid"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the chemical composition at the heart of the claimed process. Its construction is critical to determining what chemical processes fall within the patent's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent lists multiple viable, but chemically distinct, options.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional definition and lists several broad classes of chemicals that can serve as the "reagent chemical" (e.g., aromatic tertiary amines, cyclic nonaromatic amines) and "solvent" (e.g., toulene, chloroform) ('629 Patent, col. 10:20-31; col. 10:52-56). This could support a reading covering a wide range of chemical combinations.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent identifies a "preferred" reagent (quinoline) and a "preferred" solvent (dimethylacetamide) ('629 Patent, col. 3:32-34; col. 4:47-48). A party might argue the term should be limited to these preferred embodiments or to combinations that achieve the specific quantitative results described, such as the 99% reagent recovery ('629 Patent, col. 2:40-43).

  • The Term: "made amenable to compressible agglomeration"

    • Context and Importance: This functional language describes the required outcome of the chemical treatment step. Defining the specific state or property required by this term is essential for determining if a process performs the claimed function.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: This could be read broadly to mean any chemical treatment that causes the fines to bind together under pressure.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification distinguishes the invention from prior art that simply makes particles "sticky" ('629 Patent, col. 1:48-55). A party could argue the term requires a more specific result, such as achieving the "controllable hardness qualities" and "surprisingly resistant to water absorption" properties that the patent touts as key advantages of the final product ('629 Patent, col. 2:30-39).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a count for indirect patent infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not plead a count for willful patent infringement. The allegations of malicious and fraudulent conduct relate to the common law tort claims (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 47).

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

The litigation appears poised to turn on fundamental questions of property law and corporate obligations rather than technical patent analysis.

  • A central threshold issue will be one of patent ownership: did the 1991 purported assignment from the inventor to "First Adtech," a corporation that the complaint alleges was already dissolved, validly transfer title? The court's treatment of the findings from the prior dismissed action (Compl. ¶29) will be critical in determining whether Plaintiffs have standing to assert rights to the '629 Patent and its proceeds.

  • A second core issue concerns fiduciary duties and fraud: did Defendant Davidson, in his role overseeing the "Adtech venture," breach a duty to the investors by allegedly self-dealing and conspiring with Defendant Covol to transfer the patent rights for personal benefit? (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 34(A)). The case will likely require a deep factual inquiry into the nature of the relationship between Davidson and the Plaintiff investors.

  • A foundational legal question will be the characterization of the business entity: after the dissolution of "First Adtech," what was the legal nature of the "Adtech venture"? Whether the court defines it as a de facto corporation, a partnership, or an unincorporated association (Compl. ¶68) will determine the specific legal duties owed by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs and frame the analysis of the fraud, contract, and fiduciary duty claims.