Norican Group North America Inc v. Blast Cleaning Tech Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Norican Group North America, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Blast Cleaning Technologies, Inc. (Wisconsin)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Andrus Intellectual Property Law, LLP; Lando & Anastasi, LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01403, E.D. Wis., 09/12/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Wisconsin because the defendant, BCT, is incorporated in Wisconsin and has its principal place of business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s magnetic separator products for shot blasting equipment infringe two patents related to a dynamic baffle system that controls the flow of abrasive media.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue pertains to industrial surface preparation equipment, specifically systems designed to separate and recycle reusable metallic shot from sand, dust, and other contaminants.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit as of May 3, 2018. This allegation is based on the prosecution history of a third-party patent assigned to an alleged affiliate of the Defendant, during which a patent related to those in suit was cited and discussed by the affiliate's counsel.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-01-30	Earliest Priority Date for ’251 Patent
2013-01-30	Earliest Priority Date for ’781 Patent
2016-01-26	'251 Patent Issued
2016-06-21	'781 Patent Issued
2018-05-03	Alleged Date of BCT's Actual Notice
2025-09-12	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,242,251 - "Magnetic Separator With Dynamic Baffle System" (Issued Jan. 26, 2016)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In industrial shot blasting, abrasive media (like steel shot) is recycled using magnetic separators. The patent’s background section states that inconsistent or intermittent flow of this media onto the magnetic separator drum results in "uneven burdening," "less efficient cleaning," and "unbalanced distribution." (’251 Patent, col. 1:20-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a "dynamic baffle system" that uses a movable gate, or baffle, to regulate media flow. A sensor monitors the amount of media collected in a containment area above the magnetic drum. When the media level is low, a controller keeps the baffle closed, allowing the incoming media to accumulate and spread evenly across the full width of the system. Once the sensor detects a sufficient volume, the controller opens the baffle to release a uniform, full-width curtain of media onto the magnetic drum for efficient separation. (’251 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:7-21; Fig. 9).
• Technical Importance: This automated system is designed to ensure a consistently even flow of media, which improves the efficiency of the magnetic separation process, thereby increasing the lifespan of equipment components and enhancing the quality of the surface preparation. (’251 Patent, col. 2:51-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, including at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶23, ¶25).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • A dynamic baffle system for a magnetic separator comprising at least one containment barrier positioned between a rotary screen drum and a magnetic drum, with the barrier having an opening.
  • A baffle configured to block that opening, movable between an open position (allowing media flow) and a closed position (prohibiting media flow) and "configured to evenly build up" media on the barrier when closed.
  • A sensor configured to detect the "presence of media" within the containment barrier.
  • A controller coupled to the sensor and baffle to control the amount of media flowing from the barrier to the magnetic drum.

U.S. Patent No. 9,370,781 - "Magnetic Separator With Dynamic Baffle System" (Issued Jun. 21, 2016)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’781 Patent is a divisional of the application that led to the ’251 Patent and shares an identical specification. It addresses the same problem of inefficient media separation caused by inconsistent material flow over a magnetic drum. (’781 Patent, col. 1:26-34).
• The Patented Solution: The ’781 Patent claims a method of operating the dynamic baffle system described in the ’251 Patent. The method involves the steps of transferring media to a containment barrier, using a sensor to detect the presence of the media, and then using a controller to automatically move a baffle between open and closed positions to regulate the flow and ensure an even distribution for separation. (’781 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-26).
• Technical Importance: By providing a method for controlling media flow, the invention aims to improve the operational efficiency and effectiveness of industrial shot blasting and media recycling systems. (’781 Patent, col. 2:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, including at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶31, ¶36).
• The essential steps of independent claim 1 (a method claim) are:
  • Transferring media mixture from a rotary screen drum to a containment barrier.
  • Sensing the presence of the media mixture within the barrier using a sensor.
  • Controlling the movement of a baffle between an open and closed position to regulate media flow from the barrier, where this control is achieved by a controller operatively coupled to the baffle and the sensor.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as BCT’s "magnetic separation products" (Compl. ¶23).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products are used in the wheel shot blasting market, where BCT is a "direct competitor" of Norican (Compl. ¶17). The central accused functionality is an "automatically-adjustable baffle that opens and closes in response to a sensor" (Compl. ¶18). No further technical details of the accused products' operation are provided in the complaint. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an exhibit that was not provided with the filing. The infringement theory is therefore summarized below based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

• '251 Patent (System Claim): Norican alleges that BCT’s magnetic separation products directly infringe the ’251 Patent because they constitute a system containing all elements of at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶24-¶25). The core of this allegation is that the accused products incorporate a sensor-driven, automatically adjustable baffle that is physically arranged to control media flow onto a magnetic drum, thereby embodying the patented system (Compl. ¶16, ¶18).
• '781 Patent (Method Claim): Norican alleges that the use of BCT's accused products infringes the ’781 Patent because their normal operation performs all steps of at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶31, ¶36). The allegation is that when the accused product is used, it inherently performs the patented method of transferring media, sensing its presence, and automatically controlling a baffle to regulate its flow (Compl. ¶18, ¶36).
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question will be whether BCT's products operate as alleged. Specifically, does the accused baffle, when closed, function to "evenly build up" media across the system's width, and is the sensor "configured to detect a presence of media" in a manner that triggers the baffle's movement to achieve this result, as required by the claims?
  • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the scope of the term "controller." The court may need to determine whether the accused product's control logic, whatever its implementation, performs the specific feedback loop function described in the patents, where the sensor's detection of media presence directly causes the controller to actuate the baffle.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "configured to evenly build up" (from '251 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This functional language is critical because it defines the required outcome of the baffle being in its closed position. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused product is designed or structured to achieve this specific result, or if any evening of media is merely an incidental effect of its operation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s "Summary of the Disclosure" states the system "serves to spread abrasive/sand media mixture across a full length of the drum," suggesting the term may cover any configuration that achieves this general purpose (’251 Patent, col. 2:39-42).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains that this function is accomplished in part by an "outer flighting of the rotary screen" that "acts to push media mixture toward the exit end as it piles up" when the baffle is closed (’251 Patent, col. 2:45-48). A party could argue that "configured to evenly build up" requires a structure that actively and intentionally manages distribution, not one that simply blocks flow.

• The Term: "a sensor configured to detect a presence of media" (from '251 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The sensor is the trigger for the entire automated system. A dispute could arise over what condition the sensor must detect. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant might argue its sensor detects a different parameter (e.g., pressure, flow rate) that is not equivalent to simply detecting the "presence" of media as claimed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses multiple sensor types, including "capacitive proximity switches, a differential air pressure sensor, or a vibrating type sensor," suggesting the term is not limited to one specific technology (’251 Patent, col. 4:38-40).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes the sensor’s purpose as indicating whether "a full loading of abrasive/sand mixture is present" at an "exit end of the magnetic separator" (’251 Patent, col. 4:10-13). A party may argue that "presence" should be construed to mean the specific condition of a "full load" at that location, not merely the existence of any media anywhere in the containment barrier.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For the method claims of the ’781 Patent, the complaint alleges induced infringement based on BCT's acts of "promoting, advertising, instructing, facilitating, and supporting" the use of the accused products (Compl. ¶34). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting that the accused products have "no substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶32).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of both patents (Compl. ¶27, ¶38). The basis for this claim is alleged pre-suit knowledge, with Norican asserting that BCT had "actual notice" of the patents as early as May 3, 2018. This notice is not based on direct communication, but is inferred from the prosecution of a patent by BCT's alleged affiliate, where a patent from the same family as the patents-in-suit was a subject of argument between the affiliate's counsel and the USPTO (Compl. ¶21, ¶26, ¶37).

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

This dispute appears to center on highly specific functions within industrial machinery. The key questions for the court will likely be:

1. A core issue will be one of functional operation: Can Norican prove through discovery that BCT's accused separators do more than simply open and close a gate, but are specifically "configured to evenly build up" media in a closed state and then release it in response to a sensor detecting its "presence," as required by the patent claims?
2. A second question will be one of claim scope: How broadly will the court construe functional terms like "evenly build up"? The resolution may depend on whether the term requires a specific cooperative mechanism as described in the patent's embodiment or covers any structure that achieves a similar end result.
3. A significant question for damages will be one of imputed knowledge: Is evidence from the patent prosecution of an alleged affiliate, involving a related patent, sufficient to establish that the defendant itself possessed the requisite knowledge for a finding of willful infringement?