DCT
2:14-cv-00045
Petter Investments Inc v. Hydro Engineering Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Petter Investments, Inc. d/b/a RIVEER (Michigan)
- Defendant: Hydro Engineering, Inc. (Utah) and California Cleaning Systems (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Eclipse Group LLP
- Case Identification: 2:14-cv-00045, D. Utah, 02/13/2014
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants’ regular business conduct in Utah and a prior transfer of venue to the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s modular wash rack systems infringe patents related to modular cleaning facilities and automated systems for collecting and removing water and debris.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns portable, environmentally-contained wash rack systems used for cleaning large vehicles and industrial equipment.
- Key Procedural History: This Second Amended Complaint follows a transfer of venue. The complaint also references a prior, successful bid protest by the Plaintiff against the Defendant concerning a U.S. Army contract, which Plaintiff alleges is relevant to the parties' competition and Defendant's conduct.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1997-09-11 | ’298 Patent Priority Date |
| 2000-12-26 | ’298 Patent Issue Date |
| 2007-06-12 | ’720 Patent Priority Date |
| 2010-04-14 | ’774 Patent Priority Date |
| 2011-01-01 | Plaintiff alleges U.S. Army purchased its custom wash rack system (approximate date) |
| 2012-10-09 | Plaintiff granted a bid protest against Defendant by the U.S. Army |
| 2013-08-06 | ’774 Patent Issue Date |
| 2013-08-13 | ’720 Patent Issue Date |
| 2014-02-13 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,164,298 - "Modular Cleaning Facility" (issued Dec. 26, 2000)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies prior art vehicle washing systems, such as permanent in-ground sumps and portable mat-and-boom systems, as being either prohibitively expensive and inflexible or flimsy and inefficient (Compl. ¶8; ’298 Patent, col. 1:13-29).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a modular wash rack system that can be assembled in various configurations. The system uses individual racks, each with a sloped bottom tray to collect wastewater and debris, which is then funneled through a drainage fitting to a pump and filtering system for recycling and reuse (’298 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-42). This creates a semi-permanent, scalable, and cost-effective cleaning facility that can be deployed on various surfaces (’298 Patent, col. 1:24-29).
- Technical Importance: The technology offered a practical, portable, and environmentally contained alternative to permanent, fixed-in-place washing installations, meeting a need for flexible and less capital-intensive industrial cleaning solutions (’298 Patent, col. 1:13-29).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶14).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- at least one modular wash rack for supporting an item, which includes a frame with walls and a bottom surface defining a basin;
- a grate associated with the frame walls for supporting the item above the bottom surface, allowing water and debris to flow into the basin;
- a drainage fitting attached to an outer surface of one of the walls;
- coupling means for connecting the modular wash rack to another;
- a tube connected to the drainage fitting; and
- a pump to cause water to flow from the basin through the tube.
U.S. Patent No. 8,499,774 - "Wash Pad With Evacuator" (issued Aug. 6, 2013)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Conventional wash pads often require manual removal of accumulated solid debris, such as mud, using shovels or other equipment, which is a labor-intensive process (’774 Patent, col. 1:26-30).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a wash pad with an integrated trough assembly for automated debris removal. The system features a "catch trough" to collect fluid and solids, an "evacuator" to separate and remove the liquid, and a conveyor-driven "elevator" to lift the remaining solid debris from a collection height to a higher dump height for disposal into a container (’774 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-49).
- Technical Importance: This design automates the physically demanding task of solid waste removal from industrial wash pads, which can significantly reduce maintenance labor and operational downtime (’774 Patent, col. 2:44-49).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶20).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- a wash floor;
- a catch trough in fluid communication with the wash floor;
- an evacuator in fluid communication with the catch trough, comprising a debris collector and a fluid mover;
- an elevator in fluid communication with the evacuator; and
- a conveyor disposed along the catch trough and the elevator to move and elevate debris.
U.S. Patent No. 8,506,720 - "Wash Rack System With Side Trough" (issued August 13, 2013)
The Invention Explained
- The patent discloses a cleaning system designed to simplify the removal of heavy, solid waste. It features a wash floor adjacent to a wide "side trough" that is specifically "sized to accommodate a skid-steer loader," allowing a vehicle to drive into the trough to mechanically scoop out accumulated waste (’720 Patent, col. 2:30-38). A "guide rail" with openings separates the two areas, directing waste into the trough while guiding the loader (’720 Patent, col. 2:45-52). (Compl. ¶24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶26).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that certain of the Defendant's wash racks utilize a "'skid-steer side trough' design" that infringes the ’720 patent (Compl. ¶25, 50).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are identified as "modular wash rack" systems sold by Defendant Hydro Engineering, Inc., and distributed or used by Defendant California Cleaning Systems (Compl. ¶7-8, 11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these are systems used for washing vehicles and equipment in an environmentally-friendly manner that allows for water and debris collection and recycling (Compl. ¶8). The products are alleged to directly compete with Plaintiff's products, including for U.S. government contracts (Compl. ¶31-33). The complaint alleges the accused systems incorporate a "grate/basin" design, an "evacuator/elevator/conveyor" design, and a "skid-steer side trough" design corresponding to the asserted patents (Compl. ¶14, 20, 26).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’298 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a frame having a first wall, a second wall, a third wall, a fourth wall... and a bottom surface... to define a basin for collecting water... | The complaint alleges Hydro’s wash racks include a “frame” and a “basin.” | ¶14 | col. 2:45-65 |
| a grate operatively associated with said... walls for supporting the item to be washed above said bottom surface while allowing water and any debris to flow into said basin | The complaint alleges Hydro’s wash racks include a “grate,” and further alleges that Hydro “simply collapsed its grate and basin together.” | ¶14 | col. 2:50-55 |
| a drainage fitting attached to the outer surface of one of said walls... | The complaint alleges Hydro’s wash racks include a “drainage fitting.” | ¶14 | col. 2:44-45 |
| coupling means for coupling said modular wash rack to another modular wash rack | The complaint alleges Hydro’s wash racks include “coupling means.” | ¶14 | col. 3:56-62 |
| a tube... connected to said drainage fitting | The complaint alleges Hydro’s wash racks include a “tube.” | ¶14 | col. 2:27-29 |
| a pump for causing the water to flow from the basin... | The complaint alleges Hydro’s wash racks include a “pump.” | ¶14 | col. 2:32-34 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that Defendant "collapsed its grate and basin together" (Compl. ¶14). This raises a critical claim construction question: can a single, integrated structure satisfy the distinct claim limitations of a "grate" that supports an item "above" a "bottom surface" defining a "basin," or does the claim require two separate components as depicted in the patent’s figures?
- Technical Questions: The complaint provides no technical details on how the accused product is constructed. The central factual dispute will be whether the accused product’s structure, particularly its water-collection and support surfaces, meets the specific elements of a distinct "grate" and "basin" as claimed.
’774 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a wash floor for supporting a wash item | The complaint alleges the accused products include a "wash floor." | ¶19 | col. 5:50-51 |
| a catch trough disposed in fluid communication with the wash floor... | The complaint alleges the accused products include a "catch trough." | ¶19 | col. 6:60-63 |
| an evacuator... comprising: a debris collector; and a fluid mover... | The complaint alleges the accused products include an "evacuator" with a "debris collector" and a "fluid mover." | ¶19 | col. 7:1-9 |
| an elevator disposed in fluid communication with the evacuator... | The complaint alleges the accused products include an "elevator." | ¶19 | col. 8:26-30 |
| a conveyor disposed along the catch trough and the elevator... | The complaint alleges the accused products include a "conveyer." | ¶19 | col. 8:64-67 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The patent claims a specific combination of functionally interconnected components ("evacuator," "elevator," "conveyor"). A primary issue will be whether the accused system contains components that meet the structural and functional definitions of these terms as described in the patent, or if it uses a fundamentally different mechanism for fluid and solid removal.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations for this patent are conclusory, stating only that the accused product has the claimed elements (Compl. ¶19-20). It provides no description, diagrams, or other evidence of how the accused system performs the complex, automated functions of evacuating liquid, collecting solids, and elevating them for disposal. A key question is what evidence the plaintiff can provide to substantiate these claims.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’298 Patent
- The Term: "a grate operatively associated with said... walls for supporting the item to be washed above said bottom surface"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because of the allegation that Defendant "collapsed its grate and basin together" (Compl. ¶14). The construction of this phrase will determine whether a single integrated component can infringe, or if two structurally distinct elements are required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "operatively associated" does not explicitly forbid an integrated structure. A party could argue that as long as one portion of a structure performs the function of a grate (supporting the item and allowing drainage) and another portion performs the function of a basin (collecting water), they are "operatively associated."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "above said bottom surface" suggests a spatial separation. The specification consistently depicts the grate (32) as a distinct component placed over the bottom tray (38) (’298 Patent, FIG. 3-4; col. 2:50-55). This may support an interpretation requiring two separate, or at least physically distinct, structures.
For the ’774 Patent
- The Term: "evacuator"
- Context and Importance: The "evacuator" is a central element of the automated debris removal system that distinguishes the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition is key to determining if the accused system, which may use a simpler drainage method, infringes.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "evacuator" should be given a broad, functional definition covering any component that removes liquid from the catch trough.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a more detailed structure, describing the evacuator as comprising a housing (322), a fluid mover (326) like a vacuum or pump, and a debris collector (354), such as a screen, positioned over an aperture (’774 Patent, col. 7:1-17; FIG. 11). This suggests the term requires a specific multi-part assembly, not just any pump or drain.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. The allegations are made "on information and belief," asserting that Defendants had "full knowledge" of the patents, intended for their customers to infringe, and sold components that were "especially made or especially adapted" for infringing use (Compl. ¶16-17, 22-23, 28-29).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been "deliberate and willful since they first learned" about each of the asserted patents, but does not specify when or how this knowledge was obtained (Compl. ¶39, 46, 53).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A central issue will be one of definitional scope: For the ’298 patent, can a single, integrated "collapsed" structure, as alleged in the complaint, be construed to meet the distinct claim limitations of "a grate" positioned "above" a "basin," or do the claims require two physically separate components as shown in the patent's own drawings?
A key challenge will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: For the ’774 and ’720 patents, which claim complex, multi-component systems, the complaint makes only conclusory allegations of infringement. A core question for the litigation will be whether the Plaintiff can produce sufficient factual evidence to demonstrate that the accused wash racks actually contain the specific, interconnected "evacuator/elevator/conveyor" and "skid-steer sized" trough assemblies as claimed.
A third question will be one of functional performance: For the ’720 patent, infringement will turn on a functional and dimensional analysis. Does the accused system's trough have the specific size and configuration required to "accommodate a skid-steer loader" for waste removal, as the claim requires, or does it operate differently? This will likely require comparing the accused product’s dimensions to those of standard industry equipment.