DCT
3:22-cv-00197
Refined Tech Inc v. USA Debusk LLC
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Refined Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: USA DeBusk LLC (Texas); Blake Montgomery; Kyle Williams; and Ryan Ulferts
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Cabello Hall Zinda, PLLC
- Case Identification: 3:22-cv-00197, S.D. Tex., 07/21/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant DeBusk maintaining its principal place of business and other regular and established places of business within the Southern District of Texas, as well as committing alleged acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant DeBusk’s industrial reactor cleaning services infringe a patent related to methods for removing contaminants from process systems using a volatilized non-aqueous solvent.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for decontaminating industrial reactors in refineries and chemical plants, a critical process during maintenance "turnarounds" where minimizing equipment downtime is of high economic significance.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant Blake Montgomery, a former employee of Plaintiff, founded a company (Kixmon Solutions) that filed for a patent (the '239 Patent) describing a process similar to the patented method but purporting to keep the solvent in a liquid, rather than vapor, state. Plaintiff alleges this was a deliberate "cover" for infringement. The '239 patent application and Kixmon were subsequently acquired by Defendant DeBusk, where Montgomery is now an employee. The complaint also notes a prior, settled lawsuit between Plaintiff and Montgomery concerning different technology.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-06-04 | ’488 Patent Priority Date |
| 2009-08-03 | Defendant Montgomery hired by Plaintiff (Compl. ¶31) |
| 2010-05-10 | Defendant Williams hired by Plaintiff (Compl. ¶43) |
| 2012-01-01 | Defendant DeBusk founded (approximate, Compl. ¶26) |
| 2015-04-28 | U.S. Patent No. 9,017,488 Issued |
| 2015-06-05 | Defendant Montgomery resigns from Plaintiff (Compl. ¶36) |
| 2019-03-01 | Prior lawsuit between Plaintiff and Montgomery settled (approximate, Compl. ¶37) |
| 2019-09-09 | Defendant Ulferts hired by Plaintiff (Compl. ¶50) |
| 2020-02-01 | Kixmon files patent application that becomes '239 Patent (approximate, Compl. ¶38) |
| 2021-02-24 | Kixmon assigns '239 Patent application to DeBusk (Compl. ¶40) |
| 2021-04-01 | Plaintiff allegedly puts DeBusk on notice of '488 Patent (approximate, Compl. ¶75) |
| 2021-06-01 | Defendant Ulferts leaves Plaintiff for DeBusk (approximate, Compl. ¶55) |
| 2022-07-21 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,017,488 - "Process for Removing Hydrocarbons and Noxious Gasses from Reactors and Media-Packed Equipment"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,017,488, "Process for Removing Hydrocarbons and Noxious Gasses from Reactors and Media-Packed Equipment," issued April 28, 2015.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes conventional methods for cleaning industrial reactors, such as a "hot sweep" with hydrogen gas or a "wet dump" with water, as being time-consuming, costly, and potentially ineffective at removing all hazardous contaminants, thereby prolonging expensive plant shutdowns (’488 Patent, col. 3:9-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a process that uses a water-free carrier gas (e.g., hydrogen) to deliver a volatilized (vaporized) non-aqueous solvent into the contaminated equipment. This cleaning vapor permeates the system, dissolves organic contaminants from internal surfaces and catalyst beds, and is then flushed out, cleaning the system without using large quantities of liquid or steam (’488 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:30-43).
- Technical Importance: This vapor-phase cleaning method was developed to substantially reduce the time required for decontamination compared to traditional methods, offering a significant economic advantage to refineries by minimizing downtime (’488 Patent, col. 6:33-40).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶25, 69).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
- A method for removing a contaminant from a process system, comprising the steps of:
- (i) providing a water-free carrier gas source;
- (ii) providing a non-aqueous solvent source;
- (iii) volatilizing non-aqueous solvent from the non-aqueous solvent source in water-free carrier gas from the carrier gas source and delivering the carrier gas containing the volatilized non-aqueous solvent to the process system and
- (iv) removing said contaminant out of said system, wherein a substantial amount of said contaminant is dissolved in said solvent in a vapor or liquid state as it is being removed from said system.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as DeBusk’s reactor treatment services, referred to as the "Accused Methods" (Compl. ¶56, 60).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that DeBusk’s services are described in U.S. Patent No. 10,974,239 ('239 Patent), which DeBusk acquired from a company founded by Plaintiff’s former employee (Compl. ¶38, 40, 57). DeBusk advertises its reactor cleaning expertise as utilizing "Patented Technologies" that save time on reactor turnarounds (Compl. ¶56). One referenced visual is a LinkedIn post from DeBusk advertising its "REACTOR CLEANING EXPERTISE" with the tagline "Patented Technologies, Proven Results" (Compl. p. 22). The complaint asserts that while the '239 patent describes maintaining the cleaning solvent in a liquid state, the actual process inherently causes the solvent to vaporize due to the operating conditions, thus performing the patented method (Compl. ¶60, 66).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’488 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for removing a contaminant from a process system... | The Accused Methods are for treating a catalyst-containing reactor system to remove contaminants. | ¶62 | col. 1:1-4 |
| (i) providing a water-free carrier gas source; | The Accused Methods allegedly use a hydrogen-rich purge gas, which the complaint asserts is "water free" because refinery hydrogen streams are typically dried to remove water that is poisonous to catalysts. | ¶63 | col. 7:41-42 |
| (ii) providing a non-aqueous solvent source; | The Accused Methods allegedly use a non-aqueous liquid solvent, such as benzene, toluene, or xylene. | ¶64 | col. 7:43-44 |
| (iii) volatilizing non-aqueous solvent...and delivering the carrier gas containing the volatilized non-aqueous solvent to the process system... | The complaint alleges that under the operating temperatures (300-500°F) and pressures described for the Accused Methods, the injected non-aqueous solvent will inherently and substantially volatilize (vaporize) in the carrier gas, despite claims in the '239 Patent that the solvent is maintained as a liquid. | ¶65-66 | col. 7:45-50 |
| (iv) removing said contaminant out of said system, wherein a substantial amount of said contaminant is dissolved in said solvent in a vapor or liquid state as it is being removed from said system. | The Accused Methods allegedly remove contaminants (e.g., LELs, H2S) by stripping them from the catalyst. The complaint alleges these contaminants are dissolved in the vaporized solvent as they are removed from the system. | ¶67-68 | col. 7:51-56 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Question: The central technical dispute is whether DeBusk's process actually results in the volatilization of the solvent. The complaint’s infringement theory rests on the assertion that, based on "well-understood principles of thermodynamics," the operating conditions of the Accused Methods (high temperature, specific pressures) make vaporization of the specified solvents inevitable (Compl. ¶60, 66). This raises the question of what factual evidence will demonstrate the physical state of the solvent inside the reactor during the accused process.
- Scope Questions: The case raises the question of whether the claim term "volatilizing" requires an affirmative, intentional process step, or if it can be met by the inherent result of process conditions. Plaintiff alleges that "all or substantially all" of the solvent vaporizes (Compl. ¶66), but the court may need to determine the threshold for what constitutes "volatilizing" under the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "volatilizing"
Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical, as it represents the primary distinction between the Plaintiff's patented method and the method described in the '239 patent, which allegedly documents DeBusk's process. The complaint alleges infringement by asserting that DeBusk's process inherently performs this "volatilizing" step, even if unintentionally or while claiming otherwise (Compl. ¶66).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the invention as a process where a cleaning agent is injected "in the form of a cleaning vapor" (’488 Patent, Abstract). This focus on the resulting state (vapor) over the specific mechanism could support an interpretation where any method that results in a cleaning vapor meets the limitation, regardless of intent.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites "volatilizing...and delivering the carrier gas containing the volatilized...solvent" (’488 Patent, col. 7:45-50). This phrasing could be argued to imply a sequence where volatilization is an active step that precedes or occurs concurrently with delivery, rather than an incidental effect of conditions within the target system.
The Term: "water-free carrier gas"
Context and Importance: The complaint alleges that the hydrogen gas used in the Accused Methods is "water-free" because it is a standard practice in refineries to dry such gas to protect catalysts (Compl. ¶63). Practitioners may focus on this term because the "water-free" nature of the gas is a specific limitation, and a defendant could argue that its gas source does not meet this standard.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a specific parts-per-million or percentage threshold for "water-free." This may support an argument that the term means functionally free of water, i.e., containing a sufficiently low amount of water so as not to cause the technical problems (e.g., catalyst damage) that the invention seeks to avoid (’488 Patent, col. 3:6-14).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "free" is absolute. A party could argue that it requires the complete absence of water, which may be a difficult standard to prove for an industrial gas stream.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that DeBusk directs and instructs its customers to perform the Accused Methods and provides the necessary technical assistance and support to do so (Compl. ¶73).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge of the ’488 Patent. The complaint alleges this knowledge arises from multiple sources: DeBusk's hiring of Plaintiff's former employee (Montgomery), who had actual knowledge of the patent; DeBusk's acquisition of the '239 patent, which was allegedly drafted specifically to design around the ’488 Patent; and direct notice provided by Plaintiff to DeBusk in April 2021 (Compl. ¶74-75).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of factual proof versus formal description: does the accused cleaning process, when operated under its specified conditions, inherently result in the "volatilizing" of the solvent as required by Claim 1, even though the process is formally described in a separate patent as maintaining the solvent in a liquid state? Resolution will likely depend on expert testimony regarding the thermodynamic properties of the chemicals involved.
- A key question will concern intent and competitive conduct: was the development and acquisition of the '239 patent a legitimate attempt to design a non-infringing alternative, or was it, as the complaint alleges, a deliberate "cover" (Compl. ¶39) to misappropriate Plaintiff’s technology and conceal infringement? The answer will be critical for the claims of both willful infringement and trade secret misappropriation.