DCT

4:20-cv-01960

Mexichem Amanco Holding Sa De CV v. Chemours Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:20-cv-01960, S.D. Tex., 09/08/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas because Defendants have committed acts of patent infringement in the district, specifically at a production facility in Ingleside, Texas, and maintain regular and established places of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' process for manufacturing the HFO-1234yf refrigerant at their Texas facility infringes a patent directed to a multi-step chemical synthesis process.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves chemical process engineering for the production of hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs), which are next-generation refrigerants with low global warming potential (GWP) designed to replace older, environmentally harmful compounds.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the parties were previously involved in a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Interference proceeding concerning the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants initiated the Interference by filing a reissue application to copy the patent's claims, and that the USPTO ultimately entered judgment against Defendants, establishing their pre-suit knowledge of the patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-04-09 U.S. Patent No. 8,633,340 Priority Date
2014-01-21 U.S. Patent No. 8,633,340 Issue Date
2014-11-25 Chemours Co FC LLC' predecessor files reissue application to copy patent claims
2015-09-14 Reissue application assigned to Chemours II
2016-05-02 Chemours announces expansion of Ingleside facility
2018-06-20 USPTO declares Interference for the '340 Patent
2018-07-03 Chemours II identified as real party-in-interest in Interference
2019-02-12 Chemours announces startup of the accused Ingleside facility
2020-09-08 First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,633,340 - "Process for the Production of Chlorinated and Fluorinated Alkanes and Alkenes in the Presence of a Catalyst"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,633,340, "Process for the Production of Chlorinated and Fluorinated Alkanes and Alkenes in the Presence of a Catalyst," issued January 21, 2014. (Compl. ¶7).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes its invention as providing a "surprisingly clean and efficient means" for preparing certain fluorinated chemical compounds, suggesting that prior methods may have suffered from lower yields or produced more undesirable by-products. (’340 Patent, col. 1:19-22).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a chemical process for creating specific fluorinated molecules. The core of the invention involves contacting a starting material, 3,3,3-trifluoropropene (1243zf), with chlorine in the presence of a particular type of catalyst to produce an intermediate compound, 1,1,1-trifluoro-2,3-dichloropropane (243db). (’340 Patent, Abstract). The patent also claims more comprehensive, multi-step processes that begin with basic feedstocks like ethylene and carbon tetrachloride and proceed through several conversions to ultimately produce key intermediates for modern refrigerants. (’340 Patent, col. 3:1-8).
  • Technical Importance: The patented processes provide chemical pathways for synthesizing key building blocks used to manufacture hydrofluoroolefin (HFO) refrigerants, such as HFO-1234yf, which are critical for transitioning away from older refrigerants with high global warming potential. (Compl. ¶14; ’340 Patent, col. 10:52-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 4, 5, 28, 31, and 45. (Compl. ¶27).
  • Claim 1 recites a process for preparing 1,1,1-trifluoro-2,3-dichloropropane (243db) by contacting 3,3,3-trifluoropropene (1243zf) with chlorine in the presence of a catalyst comprising "activated carbon, alumina and/or an oxide of a transition metal." (Compl. ¶28).
  • Claim 4 recites a process for preparing 243db that includes the step of "converting" 1,1,1,3-tetrachloropropane (250fb) to produce the 1243zf reactant, followed by the core chlorination step. (Compl. ¶40).
  • Claim 5 recites a more extensive process for preparing 243db that begins with the telomerization of ethylene and carbon tetrachloride to produce 250fb, followed by the subsequent conversion steps recited in Claim 4. (Compl. ¶46).
  • Claim 28 recites a process comprising the core chlorination step to produce 243db, followed by the step of converting the 243db to 3,3,3-trifluoro-2-chloroprop-1-ene (1233xf). (Compl. ¶55).
  • Claim 31 adds a further step to the process of Claim 28: contacting the 1233xf with a fluorinating agent to produce a compound with the formula CF3CFXCH3. (Compl. ¶62).
  • Claim 45 recites the most complete process, adding a final step to the process of Claim 31: dehydrohalogenating the CF3CFXCH3 compound to produce the final refrigerant product, 1234yf. (Compl. ¶72).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the chemical manufacturing process used at the "Chemours Ingleside 1234yf Production Facility" located in Ingleside, Texas. (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 24).

Functionality and Market Context

The facility is alleged to perform a multi-step chemical synthesis to produce the refrigerant HFO-1234yf. (Compl. ¶18). The complaint alleges, based on public filings with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), that the process uses specific reactants and creates specific intermediates recited in the ’340 Patent, including ethylene, carbon tetrachloride, chlorine, and various halocarbons. (Compl. ¶¶ 19-22). The facility represents a significant capital investment (allegedly part of a "$300 million project") and was built to "triple the global capacity" of Chemours' HFO-1234yf production in response to "increasing market demands for more environmentally sustainable refrigerants." (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Claim Chart Summary: The following table summarizes the infringement allegations for Claim 45, which encompasses the full synthesis of the final 1234yf product.
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 45) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
(w) contacting 3,3,3-trifluoropropene (1243zf) with chlorine in the presence of a catalyst, wherein the catalyst comprises activated carbon, alumina and/or an oxide of a transition metal to produce 1,1,1-trifluoro-2,3-dichloropropane (243db) Based on TCEQ filings, the complaint alleges on information and belief that Chemours contacts 1243zf with chlorine using catalysts containing alumina, oxidized chromium or iron, and/or activated carbon to produce 243db at its facility. ¶¶ 30-34, 37-39 col. 1:11-17
(x) converting the 243db to 3,3,3-trifluoro-2-chloroprop-1-ene (CF3CCl=CH₂, (1233xf) The complaint alleges on information and belief that Chemours converts 243db to produce 1233xf, citing public documents showing Chemours requested an Environmental Screening Level for 1233xf at the facility. ¶¶ 58-61 col. 10:52-59
(y) contacting the 1233xf with a fluorinating agent to produce a compound of formula CF3CFXCH₃, wherein X=Cl or Fl The complaint alleges on information and belief that Chemours contacts 1233xf with hydrogen fluoride (a fluorinating agent) to produce 244bb, a compound that matches the claimed formula. This is supported by TCEQ filings allegedly showing use of hydrogen fluoride and emission of 244bb. ¶¶ 65-67, 71 col. 11:45-54
(z) dehydrohalogenating the compound of formula CF3CFXCH₃ to produce 1234yf The complaint alleges on information and belief that Chemours dehydrohalogenates 244bb to produce the final product, 1234yf. This is supported by TCEQ reports allegedly showing the emission of both 244bb and 1234yf from a single reactor part. ¶¶ 75-77, 79 col. 10:52-65
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A significant portion of the infringement allegations are made "on information and belief," supported by inferences from public environmental regulatory filings. (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 44, 51). A primary question for the court will be whether discovery confirms that the accused facility’s process actually performs each discrete chemical step in the specific sequence claimed by the patent. For example, what evidence will connect the alleged use of starting materials to the creation of specific intermediates and the final product in the claimed order?
    • Scope Questions: The claims require a specific type of catalyst. The complaint alleges use of materials that appear to fall within the claim language. (Compl. ¶33). However, a potential dispute may arise over whether the catalyst as actually used by Chemours meets the specific definition of "activated carbon, alumina and/or an oxide of a transition metal" as that term would be construed in light of the patent's specification.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "converting"

    • Context and Importance: This term connects the sequential steps in the multi-step process claims (e.g., claims 4, 5, 28, 31, and 45). Its definition is critical because the infringement analysis depends on whether Chemours’ potentially integrated or continuous-flow process maps onto the patent's more discretely articulated steps. Practitioners may focus on this term because it addresses whether the patent covers a "one-pot" reaction or requires distinct, separable operations.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that some related reaction steps "may be conducted simultaneously (i.e. in a one-pot process) or sequentially," which may support an interpretation that "converting" does not strictly require the isolation of intermediates. (’340 Patent, col. 4:29-34).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims' structure lists sequential steps (e.g., "(w)...to produce 243db; and (x) converting the 243db to...1233xf"), which could suggest a deliberate sequence where the purified product of one step becomes the feedstock for the next. The specification also discusses the possibility of purifying an intermediate before it is used in a subsequent step, which could support a narrower reading requiring distinct operations. (’340 Patent, col. 4:53-57).

  • The Term: "catalyst comprises activated carbon, alumina and/or an oxide of a transition metal"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the material required to facilitate the key chlorination reaction in claims 1, 4, and 5, and the initial step in the longer processes of claims 28, 31, and 45. The infringement case hinges on whether the catalyst used by Chemours falls within this definition.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of "and/or" suggests the term is disjunctive and can be satisfied by a catalyst containing any one or a combination of the listed components. The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of suitable transition metals, including chromium (Cr) and iron (Fe), which are materials the complaint alleges Chemours uses. (’340 Patent, col. 2:51-61; Compl. ¶33).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides extensive detail on preferred catalyst formulations, such as specific "zinc/chromia" catalysts and methods for their preparation. (’340 Patent, col. 5:58-65). An argument could be made that the claims should be construed not to cover any substance containing the recited elements, but rather to be limited by the specific types of catalysts actually described and enabled in the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant The Chemours Company (Chemours I) actively induced the infringement of its subsidiary, The Chemours Company FC, LLC (Chemours II). (Compl. ¶80). The alleged factual basis includes Chemours I's involvement in the "ramp up" and operation of the infringing facility, its consolidation of revenue from the facility's operations, and its alleged direction and authorization of Chemours II’s infringing acts. (Compl. ¶80).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge of the ’340 Patent. (Compl. ¶82). The primary basis for this allegation is the prior USPTO Interference proceeding, which the complaint claims provided Chemours with knowledge of the patent as early as September 2015. The complaint alleges that operating the facility despite this knowledge and the adverse judgment in the Interference demonstrates a "continuing disregard for Mexichem's rights." (Compl. ¶82).

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

  • A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: can the plaintiff, based on public records and discovery, definitively establish that the accused commercial-scale process at the Ingleside facility performs the specific sequence of chemical transformations recited in the asserted claims?
  • A key legal question will be one of claim construction: does the term "converting," as used to link steps in the process claims, require discrete operations with isolation of intermediates, or can it be construed more broadly to cover an integrated, continuous-flow process where intermediates are transient?
  • A critical question for damages and potential enhancement will be willfulness: given the documented history of the prior USPTO Interference proceeding, did Defendants proceed with the construction and operation of the accused facility in objectively reckless disregard of the risk of infringing a known patent?