DCT

2:25-cv-00333

Ecolab USA Inc v. Zappbug Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00333, W.D. Wash., 02/21/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Washington because the Defendant is a resident of the district, maintains its principal place of business there, and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s portable heat treatment chambers infringe four patents related to systems and methods for eliminating pests using controlled heat.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves portable, reusable enclosures designed to eradicate pests like bed bugs from infested items (e.g., furniture, luggage) by applying controlled, lethal heat over time.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff first notified Defendant of potential infringement via letter on August 3, 2020, and subsequently provided claim charts for the asserted patents. This history of alleged pre-suit notice is central to the claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-03-18 Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents
2016-01-05 U.S. Patent No. 9,226,489 Issues
2018-09-11 U.S. Patent No. 10,070,639 Issues
2020-08-03 Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendant
2020-08-21 Plaintiff provides claim chart for ’489 Patent to Defendant
2023-08-29 U.S. Patent No. 11,737,445 Issues
2024-01-30 Plaintiff sends notice letter and claim chart for ’445 Patent
2024-03-07 Plaintiff sends follow-up letter regarding ’445 Patent infringement
2024-08-20 U.S. Patent No. 12,063,921 Issues
2024-09-25 Plaintiff obtains and assesses sample of accused product
2024-09-25 Plaintiff sends letter and claim chart for ’921 Patent
2025-02-21 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,226,489 - "Heat System for Killing Pests"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,226,489, "Heat System for Killing Pests", issued January 5, 2016 (Compl. ¶11).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art pest treatments, such as pesticides or whole-room heating, as potentially damaging to property, inefficient, or ineffective due to "cold spots" that allow pests to survive (’489 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for treating infested articles using a sealed enclosure and a heating system. The system automatically adjusts the temperature by gradually ramping it up to a target lethal temperature (e.g., 115°F), holding it for a set time, and then potentially ramping it down, a process managed by a programmable logic controller and thermocouples to ensure effective pest elimination without damaging the treated items (’489 Patent, col. 1:55-col. 2:7). The overall system is depicted in Figure 1, showing the enclosure (10), heater (38), and ducting (34, 36).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a portable, automated, and targeted heat treatment that contains the heat, reduces energy waste compared to whole-room treatments, and offers a controlled process to avoid damaging sensitive items (’489 Patent, col. 2:56-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts indirect infringement of one or more claims, including method claim 42 (Compl. ¶27). Claim 42 is dependent on independent method claim 17. The essential elements of independent claim 17 are:
    • placing an article inside of an enclosure, the enclosure comprising a floor, a ceiling, and a plurality of walls;
    • closing the enclosure;
    • increasing a temperature of the interior space by blowing hot air from one or more heaters until the temperature is at least about 115° F.; and
    • maintaining the temperature of at least about 115° F. for a predetermined period of time.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (’489 Patent, col. 18:40-59; Compl. ¶27).

U.S. Patent No. 10,070,639 - "Heat System for Killing Pests"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,070,639, "Heat System for Killing Pests", issued September 11, 2018 (Compl. ¶12).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problems as its parent ’489 Patent, focusing on the need for an effective, non-damaging, and efficient pest eradication method (’639 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent claims the physical system for performing the heat treatment. It describes a system comprising a flexible and inflatable enclosure made of insulated material, a heating system with a heater and fan, and critically, "at least two thermocouples" connected to a controller (’639 Patent, col. 10:1-24, Claim 1). This configuration is designed to provide better temperature monitoring and control, for instance by placing a thermocouple in a potential "cold spot" to ensure the entire volume reaches lethal temperatures (’639 Patent, col. 4:55-col. 5:5).
  • Technical Importance: The invention defines a specific apparatus that enables the controlled heating method, with an emphasis on using insulated materials for efficiency and multiple sensors for improved accuracy and reliability.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts indirect infringement of one or more claims, including method claim 13 (Compl. ¶39). The essential elements of independent claim 13 are:
    • opening a zipper on a flexible and inflatable enclosure made of insulated material;
    • placing one or more articles inside of the enclosure;
    • sealing the enclosure by closing the zipper;
    • connecting a heater to the enclosure through at least one port;
    • placing at least one thermocouple within the enclosure;
    • powering on the heater to blow hot air into the enclosure;
    • monitoring the temperature with the thermocouple; and
    • maintaining a temperature of at least 115° F. inside the enclosure for about 1 minute to about 10 hours.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (’639 Patent, col. 10:51-col. 11:1; Compl. ¶39).

U.S. Patent No. 11,737,445 - "Heat System for Killing Pests"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,737,445, "Heat System for Killing Pests", issued August 29, 2023 (Compl. ¶13).
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’445 Patent claims a pest treatment system comprising a flexible enclosure with a defined minimum volume (at least 50 cubic feet), a heating system, multiple temperature sensors, an internal fan, and an internal frame (’445 Patent, col. 10:11-28, Claim 1). The inclusion of an internal frame addresses the problem of the enclosure collapsing and creating cold spots, ensuring proper air circulation around the treated articles (’445 Patent, col. 4:6-14).
  • Asserted Claims: System claim 1 and method claim 17 are asserted (Compl. ¶¶ 52, 54).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the ZappBug Room product embodies the claimed system, and that its use by customers constitutes infringement of the claimed method (Compl. ¶¶ 51-54).

U.S. Patent No. 12,063,921 - "Heat System for Killing Pests"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,063,921, "Heat System for Killing Pests", issued August 20, 2024 (Compl. ¶14).
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’921 Patent claims a pest treatment system and an associated method, again focusing on a flexible enclosure with a minimum interior volume of 50 cubic feet, a heating system, a fan, a temperature sensor, and a controller (’921 Patent, col. 11:1-22, Claim 1). The claims appear to further refine the combination of features required for a commercially functional and reliable portable heat treatment unit.
  • Asserted Claims: System claim 1 and method claim 18 are asserted (Compl. ¶¶ 66, 68).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the ZappBug Room product and its use by customers of infringing the asserted claims of the ’921 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 65-68).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The "ZappBug Room" (Compl. ¶15).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the ZappBug Room as a "portable bed bug heating system" that uses "thermal heat technology" to eradicate pests from large items like furniture and appliances (Compl. ¶16). A photograph in the complaint depicts a large, fabric-like enclosure with a reflective silver interior, containing a sofa (Compl. p. 4). Defendant allegedly markets the product as a "commercial-level solution" available "in a portable package for a fraction of the price" (Compl. ¶¶ 16, p. 4). The complaint alleges that on or around September 25, 2024, Plaintiff obtained and tested a sample of the ZappBug Room to confirm infringement (Compl. ¶61).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain element-by-element infringement contentions in its body. Instead, it alleges that it provided the Defendant with pre-suit notice letters that included detailed claim charts for the ’489, ’445, and ’921 patents (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 59, 73). As these exhibits are not attached to the complaint, the infringement theories are summarized below in prose.

  • ’489 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that ZappBug's customers directly infringe method claims, such as claim 42, by operating the ZappBug Room (Compl. ¶28). The core of this theory is that a user places infested items into the enclosure, seals it, and operates the heating unit to raise and maintain a lethal temperature for a specified time, thereby performing the steps of the patented method (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 28). ZappBug is accused of inducing and contributing to this infringement by selling the product with knowledge of the patent and with the intent that its customers use it in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 29-31).

  • ’639 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that customers directly infringe method claims, such as claim 13, when using the ZappBug Room (Compl. ¶40). This infringement theory relies on customers performing the claimed steps of opening the enclosure via its zipper, placing articles inside, sealing it, and operating the heater to execute the controlled heat treatment process (Compl. ¶40). ZappBug is accused of indirect infringement for providing the means and instructions for this use (Compl. ¶¶ 41-43).

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Scope Questions: A likely point of dispute will be whether the operational parameters of the ZappBug Room meet specific claim limitations. For example, does the phrase "maintaining a temperature" as recited in the claims ('639 Patent, cl. 13) require the precise, automated control logic described in the patent specifications ('639 Patent, col. 8:1-50; FIG. 10), or can it be read more broadly on any system that keeps the temperature generally above the claimed threshold?
    • Technical Questions: What evidence will demonstrate that the ZappBug Room's heating and control system functions in the specific manner claimed? The patents describe systems with one or more thermocouples and a programmable logic controller that automatically manages the heating cycle (’639 Patent, Abstract; cl. 1). The litigation may turn on whether the accused product's internal components and software perform these specific functions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "flexible and inflatable enclosure" ('639 Patent, cl. 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the structure of the claimed system. The construction of "inflatable" will be critical. The parties may dispute whether this term requires a structure that is entirely self-supporting via positive air pressure, or if it can read on a flexible tent-like structure that is erected with an internal frame and merely expanded by airflow from the heater.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that the system can include an "external support structure, skeleton, or frame," which "aids in preventing the formation of cold spots" (’639 Patent, col. 4:56-62). This may support an interpretation where "inflatable" does not require the enclosure to be solely air-supported.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the plain meaning of "inflatable" implies being filled with air to create a rigid or semi-rigid shape. The patent's emphasis on a system that is easy to "set up and take down" could be used to argue against a construction that requires a separate, potentially cumbersome frame (’639 Patent, col. 3:7-10).

  • The Term: "controller" ('639 Patent, cl. 1)

  • Context and Importance: The controller is the "brain" of the claimed system, and its definition will determine the required level of sophistication for an infringing device. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patents describe a "programmable logic controller" that executes a specific, automated heating and cooling ramp (’639 Patent, col. 2:1-7). The question is whether a simpler thermostatic on/off switch could meet this limitation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself uses the general term "controller." Plaintiff may argue this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any device that controls the heater in response to temperature feedback.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes a "programmable logic controller" programmed with a "predetermined temperature ramp rate" (’639 Patent, col. 1:62-col. 2:2). A defendant could argue that this detailed description, including a control logic flowchart (FIG. 10), limits the scope of "controller" to a device capable of such automated, multi-step programming, excluding simpler thermostats.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all four asserted patents. Inducement is based on allegations that ZappBug sells the ZappBug Room knowing of the patents and intending for its customers to infringe, as evidenced by pre-suit notice letters and product instructions (Compl. ¶¶ 28-29, 40-41, 54, 68). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the ZappBug Room is a material part of the invention with no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶ 30-31, 42-43, 56, 70).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all four patents. The allegations are based on ZappBug's continued sale of the accused product after receiving multiple, specific notices of infringement, including claim charts, beginning in August 2020 (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 33-35, 37, 45-46, 49, 59-61, 63, 73, 75).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope and technical operation: Does the ZappBug Room's control system perform the specific, automated temperature ramp-up, maintenance, and monitoring functions required by a proper construction of the claims, or is there a functional mismatch between the accused product's simpler thermostatic controls and the sophisticated "programmable logic controller" detailed in the patent specifications?
  • A second central question will concern willfulness and damages: Given the detailed allegations of pre-suit notice dating back to 2020, a key focus will be whether Defendant's conduct was "egregious" and justifies an award of enhanced damages, which will depend on the strength of the infringement case and any defenses Defendant may raise regarding the notice or the patents' validity.
  • An underlying issue for the court will be patent distinctiveness: As the four asserted patents arise from the same priority application and claim similar subject matter, the case may involve questions of whether the claims of the later-issued patents are invalid for obviousness-type double patenting over the earlier patents in the same family, an issue that could limit the scope of enforceable patent rights.