in the united states district court for the district of...

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

ECHOLOGICS, LLC, MUELLER INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and MUELLER CANADA, LTD. d/b/a ECHOLOGICS,

Plaintiffs,

v. ORBIS INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS, INC. and AQUAM USA, INC.,

Defendant.

No. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiffs, Echologics, LLC, Mueller International, LLC (“Mueller International”), and

Mueller Canada, Ltd. d/b/a Echologics (“Mueller Canada”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or

“Echologics”), through their attorneys, hereby demand a jury trial and complain of Defendants

Orbis Intelligent Systems, Inc. (“Orbis”) and Aquam USA, Inc. (“Aquam”) (collectively,

“Defendants”) as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United

States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., to enjoin and obtain damages resulting from Defendants’

infringement of Plaintiffs’ U.S. Patent Nos. 10,305,178 (“the ’178 patent”) and 10,386,257 (“the

’257 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).

2. In this action, Plaintiffs seek damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and

interest for Defendants’ acts of willful patent infringement.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Echologics, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal

Case 1:19-cv-02036-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 of 21 PageID #: 1

2

place of business at 1200 Abernathy Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30328.

4. Plaintiff Mueller International is a Delaware limited liability company with a

principal place of business at 1200 Abernathy Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30328.

5. Plaintiff Mueller Canada, Ltd. d/b/a Echologics is a Canadian limited company

with a principal place of business at 82 Hooper Road, Barrie, Ontario, Canada L4N 8Z9.

6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Orbis is a Delaware corporation with a

principal place of business at 7710 Kenamar Court, San Diego, CA 92121.

7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Aquam is a Delaware corporation with a

principal place of business at 7710 Kenamar Court, San Diego, CA 92121.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this patent infringement

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants at least because Defendants

are incorporated in the State of Delaware. In addition, upon information and belief, Defendants

also are subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction because Defendants do business in this forum,

including at least a portion of the infringing conduct alleged herein, and regularly do and solicit

business and have otherwise committed such purposeful acts and transactions in Delaware such

that they reasonably should know and expect that they could be haled into this Court as a

consequence of such activities.

10. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because, among

other things, each of the Defendants is incorporated in the State of Delaware and therefore

“resides” in this District and/or has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and

established place of business in this District.


3

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs and the Asserted Patents

11. Plaintiffs are indirect subsidiaries of Mueller Water Products, Inc. (“MWP”), a

public company with subsidiaries that are leading manufacturers of products and services used in

the transmission, distribution, and measurement of water. MWP and its subsidiaries have been

providing innovative products for over 160 years.

12. Plaintiffs Echologics, LLC and Mueller Canada provide technologies, products,

and services that can non-invasively (without disrupting service or introducing a foreign object

into the water system) detect underground leaks and assess the condition of water mains.

13. Echologics has spent millions of dollars on research and development to develop

new products and improve and refine existing products. As a result of Echologics’s history and

dedication to innovation, Echologics has been awarded numerous United States patents, and has

additional United States patent applications pending that cover various aspects of Echologics’s

technologies, products, and services.

14. The Asserted Patents, in particular, cover various aspects of mounting a nozzle cap

assembly with an enclosed antenna to a fire hydrant. The antenna may be used to transmit a signal

carrying data gathered by one or more sensors in the nozzle cap assembly. This results in a “smart”

fire hydrant that can detect leaks early and help utilities prioritize repairs based on actual need and

allocate field crew resources more effectively.

15. The ’178 patent issued on May 28, 2019, is entitled “Nozzle Cap Multi-Band

Antenna Assembly,” and names Daryl Gibson, Jorge Ortiz, David Dunn, Yanlong Li, and Jesse

Faunce as inventors. Plaintiff Mueller International owns by assignment the right, title, and

interest in the ’178 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’178 patent is attached hereto as

Exhibit A.


4

16. The ’257 patent issued on August 20, 2019, is entitled “Enclosure for Leak

Detector,” and names Leo Fleury, Jr., Ganapathi Dintakurti, James Williams, and Shabbir Yusuf

as inventors. Plaintiff Mueller International owns by assignment the right, title, and interest in the

’257 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’257 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

Acts Giving Rise to this Action

17. The allegations provided below are exemplary and without prejudice to Plaintiffs’

infringement contentions. In providing these allegations, Plaintiffs do not convey or imply

particular claim constructions or the precise scope of the claims. Plaintiffs’ claim construction

contentions regarding the meaning and scope of the claim terms will be provided under the Court’s

scheduling order and local rules.

18. Defendants provide monitoring products and services for pipeline infrastructure.

19. In or around August 2019, Defendants introduced a “SmartCap” nozzle cap

assembly as part of their “Prodigy” product line. According to Defendants, the SmartCap product

“turns any hydrant into a smart hydrant.” Product literature and promotional materials from Orbis

regarding the SmartCap product are attached hereto as Exhibit C (SmartCap product brochure),

Exhibit D (SmartCap product webpage), Exhibit E (LinkedIn posts regarding SmartCap product),

and Exhibit F (press release regarding SmartCap product). Photos of the SmartCap product on

display and being offered for sale by Aquam at a recent conference are attached hereto as Exhibit

G. A photo from Exhibit F showing the SmartCap nozzle assembly mounted to a fire hydrant is

reproduced below.


5

20. On August 26, 2019, Plaintiffs, through their counsel, formally notified Orbis’s

CEO, via letter sent by FedEx, of the ’178 patent and other United States patents owned by

Mueller International and covering various aspects of Echologics’s technologies, systems, and

methods. Plaintiffs requested that Orbis provide them with product information about the

SmartCap product. Upon information and belief, Defendants received Plaintiffs’ August 26, 2019,

letter on August 27, 2019.

21. Receiving no response, Plaintiffs sent a follow-up letter on September 16, 2019.

22. On October 2, 2019, counsel for Aquam responded by letter stating that Orbis

cannot share information about the SmartCap product.

23. Since sending their August 26, 2019, letter, Plaintiffs have uncovered sufficient

information to determine, as described in more detail below, that each element of at least one claim

of each of the Asserted Patents is literally present in the SmartCap product, or is literally practiced


6

by the process through which the SmartCap product is made and/or used. To the extent that any

element is not literally present or practiced, each such element is present or practiced under the

doctrine of equivalents.

24. Defendants’ SmartCap product is a non-limiting example that was identified based

on publicly available information. Plaintiffs reserve the right to identify additional activities,

products, and services, including but not limited to other products within Defendants’ Prodigy

product line, found to be infringing one or more of the Asserted Patents and/or other of Plaintiffs’

patents on the basis of, e.g., information obtained during discovery.

25. In short, Defendants are making extensive use of Plaintiffs’ patented technologies,

including the technology described and claimed in the Asserted Patents. Plaintiffs have no choice

but to defend their proprietary and patented technology. Plaintiffs thus request that this Court

award them damages sufficient to compensate for Defendants’ infringement of the Asserted

Patents, find this case exceptional and award Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees and costs, and grant

preliminary and permanent injunctions against Defendants to prevent ongoing infringement of the

Asserted Patents.

COUNT I DIRECT AND INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF

U.S. PATENT NO. 10,305,178

26. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege all the forgoing paragraphs of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

27. Defendants have had knowledge of the ’178 patent, and their infringement of that

patent, at least as of August 27, 2019, the date Defendants received Plaintiffs’ August 26, 2019,

letter.

28. Defendants are engaged in the design, manufacture, use, importation, sale and/or


7

offering for sale in the United States of nozzle cap assemblies and related products and services

that directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 13, 16, and

18 of the ’178 patent.

29. Additionally, on information and belief, Defendants are engaged in the design,

manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offering for sale in the United States of nozzle cap

assemblies and related products and services that indirectly infringe, either literally or under the

doctrine of equivalents, the ’178 patent.

30. For example, users of Defendants’ SmartCap product, including Defendants’

customers, distributors, suppliers, and end-users, commit acts of direct infringement when they

perform the steps of claim 13 or use the SmartCap product in a fluid system in accordance with

claims 16 and 18.

31. Defendants have had knowledge of these acts of direct infringement of claims 13,

16, and 18 of the ’178 patent and nevertheless actively induce users, with specific intent, to

infringe by, for example, instructing them how to use the SmartCap product in an infringing

manner in Defendants’ product literature and promotional materials and at trade shows and and

providing them with subscription-based monitoring services using data transmitted from the

SmartCap product in an infringing manner. Defendants further contribute to these acts of direct

infringement because Defendants’ SmartCap product performs a material part of the claimed

inventions of the ’178 patent and is not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for

substantial non-infringing use, and Defendants know that the SmartCap product is especially made

and adapted for use in an infringing manner.

32. For example, claim 16 of the ’178 patent further requires “[a] smart fluid system.”

Defendants’ SmartCap product is designed for mounting one or more sensors and an antenna to a


8

fire hydrant to provide a smart fluid system. See, e.g., Exhibit D (“[T]he Prodigy SmartCap turns

any hydrant into a smart hydrant.”); Exhibit F (describing the SmartCap product as “an intelligent

fire hydrant and pipe monitoring device packaged into a fire hydrant cap. The SmartCap screws

on to most standard fire hydrants enabling remote leak detection as well as monitoring for tamper,

freeze, and flow events.”)

33. Claim 16 of the ’178 patent further requires “a hydrant connected in fluid

communication to the fluid system, the hydrant comprising a nozzle.” The SmartCap product is

designed for mounting to the nozzle of a hydrant that is connected in fluid communication to the

fluid system. See, e.g., Exhibit E at p. 2 (stating that users can “turn[] any existing hydrant into a

Smart Hydrant by simply replacing an existing pumper nozzle with our [SmartCap]”); Exhibit F:

34. Claim 16 of the ’178 patent further requires “a sensing node mounted on the nozzle

of the hydrant.” The SmartCap product comprises a sensing node that is designed to be mounted on


9

the nozzle of the hydrant. See, e.g., Exhibit E at p. 2 (stating that users can “turn[] any existing

hydrant into a Smart Hydrant by simply replacing an existing pumper nozzle with our

[SmartCap]”); id. at p. 5 (stating that the SmartCap product provides “condition assessment, real

time leak detection, flow events and tamper events” monitoring); Exhibit F (photo reproduced

above).

35. Claim 16 of the ’178 patent further requires “a nozzle cap housing defining internal

threading at a first end of the nozzle cap housing, the internal threading engaging the nozzle to

secure the sensing node to the hydrant, the nozzle cap housing defining a lower rim at the first

end.” The SmartCap product includes a nozzle cap housing (identified below) that meets this

limitation (Exhibit D):

See also, e.g., Exhibit F (“The SmartCap screws on to most standard fire hydrants . . . .”); Exhibit

E at p. 1 and Exhibit G at p. 2:


10

36. Claim 16 of the ’178 patent further requires “a nozzle cap cover attached to the

nozzle cap housing at a second end of the nozzle cap housing, the second end disposed opposite

from the first end, the nozzle cap cover and the nozzle cap housing defining an interior cavity.”

The SmartCap product includes a nozzle cap cover (identified below) that meets this limitation

(Exhibit D):


11

See also, e.g., Exhibit E at p. 1 and Exhibit C at p. 1:

37. Claim 16 of the ’178 patent further requires “an antenna cover fitted over an

antenna mounting portion of the nozzle cap housing, the antenna cover secured between the nozzle

cap cover and the lower rim, the nozzle cap housing, the nozzle cap cover, and the antenna cover

defining an antenna cover cavity.” The SmartCap product includes an antenna cover (identified

below) that meets this limitation (Exhibit D):


12

See also, e.g., Exhibit C at p.1:

38. Claim 16 of the ’178 patent further requires “a sensor positioned within the interior

cavity, the sensor configured to collect data for a parameter of the fluid system.” The SmartCap

product includes a sensor that meets this limitation. See, e.g., Exhibit C at p. 2 (indicating that the

SmartCap product includes an acoustic sensor comprising a piezo ceramic transducer); id. at p. 1

(stating that the SmartCap “monitors, processes, and records multiple channels of data from

several on-board sensors and stores the processed data in memory, ready for upload to the cloud

via Cat-M1 cellular connectivity”); id.:


13

39. Claim 16 of the ’178 patent further requires “an antenna assembly mounted to the

nozzle cap housing between the lower rim and the nozzle cap cover, the antenna assembly

positioned within the antenna cover cavity, the antenna cover fitted over the antenna assembly, the

antenna assembly configured to transmit the data collected by the sensor.” The SmartCap product

includes an antenna assembly (identified below) that meets this limitation. See, e.g., Exhibit C at

p.1:


14

See also, e.g., Exhibit C at p. 1 (stating that the SmartCap “monitors, processes, and records

multiple channels of data from several on-board sensors and stores the processed data in memory,

ready for upload to the cloud via Cat-M1 cellular connectivity. Reports and data files are

transmitted daily unless events occur, in which case Prodigy [SmartCap] will transmit data real

time to ensure alerts and notifications are received as they occur.”).

40. Plaintiffs thus request that this Court award them damages sufficient to compensate

for Defendants’ infringement of the ‘178 patent, find this case exceptional and award Plaintiffs

their attorneys’ fees and costs, and grant preliminary and permanent injunctions against

Defendants to prevent ongoing infringement of the ‘178 patent.

41. Plaintiffs are without an adequate remedy at law and will be irreparably harmed if

the Court does not enter an order enjoining Defendants from infringing the ’178 patent.


15

COUNT II DIRECT AND INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF

U.S. PATENT NO. 10,386,257

42. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege all the forgoing paragraphs of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

43. Defendants have had knowledge of the ’257 patent, and their infringement of that

patent, at least as of the date of the filing of this Complaint.

44. Defendants are engaged in the design, manufacture, use, importation, sale and/or

offering for sale in the United States of nozzle cap assemblies and related products and services

that directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1, 6-13,

and 18-20 of the ’257 patent.

45. Additionally, on information and belief, Defendants are engaged in the design,

manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offering for sale in the United States of nozzle cap

assemblies and related products and services that indirectly infringe, either literally or under the

doctrine of equivalents, the ’257 patent.

46. For example, users of Defendants’ SmartCap product, including Defendants’

customers, distributors, suppliers, and end-users, commit acts of direct infringement when they

perform the steps of claims 19 and 20 or use the SmartCap product in accordance with claims 1,

6-13, and 18.

47. Defendants have had knowledge of these acts of direct infringement of claims 1,

6-13, and 18-20 of the ’257 patent and nevertheless actively induce users, with specific intent, to

infringe by, for example, instructing them how to use the SmartCap product in an infringing

manner in Defendants’ product literature and promotional materials and at trade shows and

providing them with subscription-based monitoring services using data transmitted from the


16

SmartCap product in an infringing manner. Defendants further contribute to these acts of direct

infringement because Defendants’ SmartCap product performs a material part of the claimed

inventions of the ’257 patent and is not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for

substantial non-infringing use, and Defendants know that the SmartCap product is especially made

and adapted for use in an infringing manner.

48. For example, claim 13 of the ’257 patent requires “[a] fire hydrant assembly.” The

SmartCap product comprises a fire hydrant assembly. See, e.g., Exhibit E at p. 2 (stating that users

can “turn[] any existing hydrant into a Smart Hydrant by simply replacing an existing pumper

nozzle with our [SmartCap]”); Exhibit F:

49. Claim 13 of the ’257 patent further requires “a fire hydrant, the fire hydrant

comprising a nozzle.” The SmartCap product is designed to be mounted on the nozzle of the fire


17

hydrant. See, e.g., Exhibit E at p. 2 (stating that users can “turn[] any existing hydrant into a Smart

Hydrant by simply replacing an existing pumper nozzle with our [SmartCap]”); Exhibit F (photo

reproduced above).

50. Claim 13 of the ’257 patent further requires “a nozzle cap mounted on the nozzle,

the nozzle cap defining an inner surface and an outer surface, the inner surface defining a nozzle

cap cavity within the nozzle cap.” The SmartCap product includes a nozzle cap (identified below)

that is mounted on the nozzle of the fire hydrant and meets this limitation (Exhibit D).

See also, e.g., Exhibit F (“The SmartCap screws on to most standard fire hydrants enabling remote

leak detection as well as monitoring for tamper, freeze, and flow events.”); Exhibit E at p. 2

(stating that users can “turn[] any existing hydrant into a Smart Hydrant by simply replacing an

existing pumper nozzle with our [SmartCap]”).

51. Claim 13 of the ’257 patent further requires “an antenna enclosure mounted to the

nozzle cap, a portion of the antenna enclosure disposed external to the nozzle cap.” The SmartCap

product includes an antenna cover (identified below) that meets this limitation (Exhibit D):


18

52. Claim 13 of the ’257 patent further requires “an antenna positioned within the

antenna enclosure.” The SmartCap product includes an antenna (identified below) that meets this

limitation. See, e.g., Exhibit C at p.1:

See also, e.g., Exhibit C at p. 1 (stating that the SmartCap “monitors, processes, and records

multiple channels of data from several on-board sensors and stores the processed data in memory,


19

ready for upload to the cloud via Cat-M1 cellular connectivity. Reports and data files are

transmitted daily unless events occur, in which case Prodigy [SmartCap] will transmit data real

time to ensure alerts and notifications are received as they occur.”).

53. Plaintiffs thus request that this Court award them damages sufficient to compensate

for Defendants’ infringement of the ‘257 patent, find this case exceptional and award Plaintiffs

their attorneys’ fees and costs, and grant preliminary and permanent injunctions against

Defendants to prevent ongoing infringement of the ‘257 patent.

54. Plaintiffs are without an adequate remedy at law and will be irreparably harmed if

the Court does not enter an order enjoining Defendants from infringing the ’257 patent.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby request a trial by jury on all issues so triable pursuant to Rule 38 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Echologics, LLC, Mueller International, LLC, and Mueller

Canada, Ltd. d/b/a Echologics respectfully request that the Court find in its favor and against

Defendants, Orbis Intelligent Systems, Inc. and Aquam USA, Inc., and that the Court grant

Plaintiffs the following relief:

(a) An adjudication that Plaintiffs’ rights in the Asserted Patents are valid and

enforceable;

(b) An adjudication that one or more claims of each of the Asserted Patents has been

infringed, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Defendants;

(c) An adjudication that, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 283, Defendants, and all

affiliates, employees, agents, officers, directors, attorneys, successors, and assigns

and all those acting on behalf of or in active or concert or participation with any of


20

them, are preliminarily and permanently enjoined from infringing each of the

Asserted Patents;

(d) An award of damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiffs for Defendants’ direct

infringement of each of the Asserted Patents, including lost profits suffered by

Plaintiffs as a result of Defendants’ direct infringement for each of the Asserted

Patents, and in an amount not less than a reasonable royalty;

(e) An award of damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiffs for Defendants’ indirect

infringement of each of the Asserted Patents, including lost profits suffered by

Plaintiffs as a result of Defendants’ infringement and in an amount not less than a

reasonable royalty;

(f) An order awarding Plaintiffs treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 as a result of

Defendants’ willful and deliberate infringement of each of the Asserted Patents;

(g) A finding that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and that Plaintiffs shall

be awarded their attorneys’ fees;

(h) An award to Plaintiffs of their costs and expenses in this action;

(i) An award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest to Plaintiffs; and

(j) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the

circumstances.


21

Dated: October 28, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

MORRIS JAMES LLP /s/ Kenneth L. Dorsney Kenneth L. Dorsney (#3726) 500 Delaware Ave., Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801-1494 (302) 888-6800

[email protected] TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA, LLP Todd E. Jones (applying for admission pro hac vice) Coby S. Nixon (applying for admission pro hac vice)

1600 Parkwood Circle, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30339 [email protected] [email protected] (770) 434-6868 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Echologics, LLC,

Mueller International, LLC, and Mueller Canada Ltd. d/b/a Echologics


in the united states district court for the district of...

Documents