DCT
4:25-cv-04190
Neochloris Holding LLC v. Cemvita Factory Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: NeoChloris Holding LLC (Illinois)
- Defendant: Cemvita Factory Inc. (Delaware); Gold H2, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Park, Vaughan, Fleming & Dowler LLP; Vitale, Vickrey, Niro, Solon & Gasey LLP
- Case Identification: 4:25-cv-04190, S.D. Tex., 09/04/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants maintain regular and established places of business in the Southern District of Texas, and the accused processes operate within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ subsurface biomanufacturing processes, which use microorganisms to convert carbon sources into hydrogen and other chemicals, infringe a patent related to deep-well bioreactors for producing fuel and chemicals from biomass-sequestered carbon dioxide.
- Technical Context: The technology lies in the field of carbon capture and utilization (CCU), where biological processes are used to convert carbon sources, such as industrial CO2 or residual hydrocarbons, into commercially valuable products in subterranean environments.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants gained knowledge of the patented technology through a series of technology review meetings in 2019, which were also attended by personnel from BHP Group Limited, and that key individuals from BHP with access to this information were subsequently hired by Defendant Cemvita. Plaintiff also alleges it provided direct notice of infringement via a letter dated January 1, 2025.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-03-12 | '895 Patent Priority Date |
| 2018-08-06 | NeoChloris invited to participate in NREL project with BHP |
| 2019-01-15 | U.S. Patent No. 10,179,895 Issued |
| 2019-02-08 | Project kickoff meeting involving NeoChloris and BHP |
| 2019-04-16 | Technology review meeting where NeoChloris allegedly presented technology to Cemvita representatives |
| 2022-11-14 | Cemvita publishes White Paper describing tests of the accused process |
| 2025-01-01 | NeoChloris sends notice letter to Cemvita alleging infringement |
| 2025-02-27 | Plaintiff sends follow-up email to Cemvita |
| 2025-03-06 | Plaintiff sends second follow-up email to Cemvita |
| 2025-09-04 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,179,895 - Device for Fuel and Chemical Production from Biomass-Sequestered Carbon Dioxide and Method Therefor
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,179,895, titled “Device for Fuel and Chemical Production from Biomass-Sequestered Carbon Dioxide and Method Therefor,” issued on January 15, 2019 (the “’895 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the atmospheric accumulation of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2), and seeks to develop methods for not only sequestering CO2 but also converting the captured carbon into useful fuels and chemical products (’895 Patent, col. 1:17-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a deep-well bioreactor system designed to sequester carbon and produce methane. The system generally comprises two concentric chambers extending vertically underground: an inner "biomass incubator" and an outer "anaerobic digester" (’895 Patent, Fig. 1). In the inner chamber, microorganisms (e.g., algae) use a carbon source (e.g., CO2) to grow and expand, creating biomass. This biomass then overflows into the outer chamber, where methanogenic microbes digest it anaerobically to produce methane (’895 Patent, Abstract; col. 12:45-59). The deep-well configuration is described as advantageous because the increased hydrostatic pressure enhances the solubility of CO2, thereby increasing the efficiency of the biological reactions (’895 Patent, col. 11:15-22).
- Technical Importance: This approach combines carbon sequestration with value-added chemical production in a single, land-efficient process that leverages subsurface pressure to improve reaction rates (Compl. ¶31, 38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1, 6-7, 9, 12-15, 17-18, 20-21, and 23, with a detailed focus on independent method claim 20 (Compl. ¶80, 118).
- The essential elements of independent claim 20 are:
- A method for sequestering carbon in a biomass, comprising:
- introducing a carbon source to a biomass incubator, wherein the biomass incubator contains a biomass;
- allowing the biomass contained within the biomass incubator to metabolize at least some carbon from the carbon source;
- allowing the biomass to expand such that additional biomass is produced;
- exposing the biomass contained within the biomass incubator to a pressure imparted by a vertical column of water in a well extending from ground level to at least at 50 meters below ground level; and
- subjecting at least a portion of the biomass to physical-chemical treatment to recover fat, protein, or carbohydrate.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are two processes: the “Cemvita Subsurface Carbon Sequestering/Utilization Process” and the “Gold Hydrogen process” (Compl. ¶4, 5).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these processes transform depleted oil reservoirs into "underground biorefineries" (Compl. ¶44). The functionality involves injecting engineered microbes, water, and nutrients into these subterranean formations to convert existing carbon sources (such as residual hydrocarbons and CO2) into valuable products like hydrogen, methane, and biosurfactants (Compl. ¶19-21, 45-46). The processes are marketed as a "carbon-negative technology" that helps industries reduce greenhouse gas emissions while creating new resources from waste streams (Compl. ¶43). A diagram from Cemvita's materials illustrates this process, showing the injection of materials to create an "Underground Biorefinery" that produces methane gas (Compl. ¶46).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’895 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 20) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| introducing a carbon source to a biomass incubator, wherein the biomass incubator contains a biomass | Defendants' processes introduce carbon sources, including residual hydrocarbons and CO2, into a subterranean formation (e.g., a depleted oil well) which allegedly functions as a biomass incubator containing microbes. A visual in the complaint is explicitly titled "Introducing a Carbon Source to a Biomass Incubator" (Compl. ¶55). | ¶83, 123 | col. 18:16-20 |
| allowing the biomass contained within the biomass incubator to metabolize at least some carbon from the carbon source | The injected microbes allegedly metabolize residual oil and other carbon sources within the reservoir to fuel their growth and produce byproducts. The complaint provides a visual depicting microbes in a "Biomass incubator" that "Metabolize some of the carbon" (Compl. ¶90). | ¶90, 127 | col. 18:21-23 |
| allowing the biomass to expand such that additional biomass is produced | The metabolic process allegedly causes the microbial population (biomass) to grow and expand within the subterranean formation. An annotated diagram is presented to show the process is "Allowing the biomass to produce additional biomass" (Compl. ¶94). | ¶94, 129 | col. 18:24-26 |
| exposing the biomass contained within the biomass incubator to a pressure imparted by a vertical column of water in a well extending from ground level to at least at 50 meters below ground level | The processes are allegedly performed in depleted oil wells extending more than 50 meters below ground, where the injection of water creates hydrostatic pressure on the biomass. The complaint includes a diagram annotated to show a "Well - 50 meters below ground level" and the step of "Exposing biomass in the biomass incubator to a pressure" (Compl. ¶95). | ¶95, 132-133 | col. 18:27-32 |
| subjecting at least a portion of the biomass to physical-chemical treatment to recover fat, protein, or carbohydrate | The processes allegedly recover biosurfactants, which are said to include proteins and carbohydrates, through a "solvent free extraction process." A visual is provided with the heading "Physical Treatment to Recover Fat, Protein or Carbohydrate" (Compl. ¶99). | ¶99, 136-137 | col. 18:33-36 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary dispute may arise over whether a repurposed, natural "subterranean formation" or "depleted oil reservoir" (Compl. ¶51, 86) falls within the scope of the term "biomass incubator" as contemplated by the ’895 Patent. The patent's specification and figures describe a purpose-built, engineered apparatus with coaxial cylindrical shafts (’895 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 9:26-27), raising the question of whether the claim term requires a constructed device rather than a modified natural environment.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the recovery of "biosurfactants that include proteins and carbohydrates" satisfies the "physical-chemical treatment" limitation (Compl. ¶56, 99). The case may turn on evidence demonstrating the specific composition of the recovered biosurfactants and whether the Defendants' extraction method qualifies as a "physical-chemical treatment" of the biomass itself, as opposed to merely harvesting a product secreted by the biomass.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Key Term: "biomass incubator"
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the infringement analysis. The definition will determine whether the accused processes, which utilize existing subterranean oil reservoirs, can be considered to practice a method step occurring in a "biomass incubator." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's embodiments depict a manufactured apparatus, while the accused instrumentality is a modified geological formation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly limit the "incubator" to a specific structure, and the patent's summary refers more broadly to "systems, devices and methods" (’895 Patent, col. 1:34). Plaintiff’s argument may be that the underground reservoir, as modified and used by Defendants, functions as an incubator, making a functional definition appropriate.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description consistently describes the incubator as an "elongated cylindrical inner shaft" located "coaxially located within the middle shaft" of an anaerobic digester (’895 Patent, col. 10:15-19, Fig. 1-2). This consistent depiction of a specific, engineered structure could support a narrower construction limited to such an apparatus.
Key Term: "a well extending from ground level"
- Context and Importance: The claim requires pressure to be imparted by water in "a well." The infringement allegation rests on the use of pre-existing, depleted oil wells (Compl. ¶96, 133). The construction of this term will address whether a repurposed oil well meets the claim limitation or if the term implies a well constructed as part of the patented bioreactor system.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "a well" is not qualified in the claim itself. The patent's focus is on the functional use of a vertical water column to create pressure, a function that a repurposed oil well can perform.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict the well as an integral component of the overall bioreactor device, which is presented as a singular, integrated system (’895 Patent, Fig. 1). An argument could be made that this context limits the term to a well that is part of the patented apparatus, not a pre-existing, independent structure.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement of infringement against both Defendants, stating that Gold H2 induces infringement by Cemvita and/or its customers, and Cemvita induces its customers to use the infringing process (Compl. ¶108, 144). The factual basis appears to rely on the offering for sale and marketing of the accused processes.
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willfulness based on both pre- and post-notice knowledge. Pre-notice knowledge is alleged to stem from 2019 meetings where Cemvita representatives were allegedly provided with "significant access to the operation and technology" of the ’895 Patent (Compl. ¶63-64, 67). The complaint further alleges that Cemvita later hired two individuals who were privy to these technical discussions (Compl. ¶71). Post-notice knowledge is based on a letter sent to Cemvita's CEO on January 1, 2025, and subsequent follow-up communications that allegedly went unanswered (Compl. ¶73-75, 105, 141).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "biomass incubator," which is illustrated in the patent as a purpose-built, coaxial deep-well apparatus, be construed to read on a repurposed, natural geological formation such as a depleted oil reservoir? The outcome of this claim construction dispute may be dispositive for infringement.
- A second central issue will be evidentiary and factual, focused on the willfulness claim: what technical information was actually disclosed by NeoChloris to Cemvita representatives during the 2019 meetings, and to what extent did that information inform the development of the accused processes? This will determine whether pre-suit knowledge can be established and will distinguish between independent development and alleged copying.