Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01251/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01251-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Five Star Filtration, LLC; Johnson

Utilities, LLC, 

Defendants. _________________________________

Five Star Filtration, LLC,

Counter Claimant,

vs.

Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc.,

Counter Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1251-PHX-FJM

ORDER

On March 9, 2012, we ordered defendant Five Star Filtration, LLC, to show cause

(doc. 53) why it should not be held in contempt of the Consent Judgment entered on April

3, 2008 (doc. 38) (“Consent Judgment”). We now have before us Five Star’s response to the

Order to Show Cause (doc. 57), and plaintiff’s reply (doc. 59).

Aqua-Aerobic is the licensee of the ‘132 Patent, a cloth media wastewater filtration

system. In 2007, Aqua-Aerobic filed a patent infringement action against Five Star, claiming

that the manufacture and sale of its Five-Star Disk Filter System at the Pecan Creek

Subdivision in Queen Creek, Arizona (“Pecan Creek”) violated the ‘132 Patent. The parties

eventually entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which Five Star acknowledged

Case 2:07-cv-01251-FJM Document 60 Filed 04/27/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

that it had “directly and/or indirectly infringed the ‘132 patent” through the use of the FiveStar Disk Filter System at Pecan Creek. Consent Judgment ¶ 5. As part of the settlement,

Five Star agreed to modify the Five Star Disk Filter System (“Redesigned System”), by

adding spacers to the backwash header so that “the backwash header and/or backwash shoe

[of the Redesigned System] does not at any time come into contact with the cloth filter media

(or pile threads of the cloth filter media) or in any way act mechanically upon the pile threads

of the cloth filter media during operation.” Id. ¶ 6. Aqua-Aerobic agreed that “the

Redesigned System, as represented by Five Star, does not infringe the ‘132 patent.” Id. ¶ 7.

Now, four years later, Aqua-Aerobic seeks an order holding Five Star in contempt of

the Consent Judgment for continuing to infringe the ‘132 patent. Aqua-Aerobic initially

argued that, because of performance problems, Five Star abandoned the Redesigned System

and returned to the original infringing system in violation of the Consent Judgment. Motion

for OSC at 3, 5. However, in the face of substantial evidence that Five Star continues to use

the Redesigned System at the Pecan Creek facility, Aqua-Aerobic now alleges that the

Redesigned System itself infringes its patent because the backwash shoe comes into contact

with the cloth filter. 

Contempt is a “severe remedy, and should not be resorted to where there is a fair

ground of doubt as to the wrongfulness of the defendant’s conduct.” MAC Corp. of Am. v.

Williams Patent Crusher & Pulverizer Co., 767 F.2d 882, 885 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing Cal.

Aritificial Stone Paving Co. v. Molitor, 113 U.S. 609, 618, 5 S. Ct. 618, 622 (1885)). The

party seeking to enforce an injunction must prove by clear and convincing evidence “both

that the newly accused product is not more than colorably different from the product found

to infringe and that the newly accused product actually infringes.” TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar

Corp., 646 F.3d 869, 882 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “The primary question on contempt should be

whether the newly accused product is so different from the product previously found to

infringe that it raises a fair ground of doubt as to the wrongfulness of the defendant’s

conduct.” Id. (quotation omitted). “Where one or more of those elements previously found

to infringe has been modified, or removed, the court must make an inquiry into whether that

Case 2:07-cv-01251-FJM Document 60 Filed 04/27/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

modification is significant.” Id. 

We first conclude that Aqua-Aerobic has failed to establish by clear and convincing

evidence that the Redesigned System is not more than colorably different from the original

infringing product. During settlement negotiations, the parties agreed that Five Star’s

original disk filter system infringed Aqua-Aerobic’s patent because the backwash shoe came

into contact with the cloth filters. The parties agreed that to avoid infringement, Five Star

would attach spacers or “feet” to the backwash shoe in order to prevent the shoe from coming

into contact with the cloth filter. Aqua-Aerobic approved the proposed Redesigned System

as non-infringing, and Five Star replaced the original infringing system with the Redesigned

System. The newly installed spacers were a significant modification to the design and

performance of the original filter system given that the agreed upon modification resolved

the infringement lawsuit. Therefore, we conclude that there is more than a colorable

difference between the original infringing product and the Redesigned System so as to raise

a fair ground of doubt as to the wrongfulness of Five Star’s conduct. This conclusion alone

precludes a finding of contempt. 

We also conclude, however, that Aqua-Aerobic has failed to show by clear and

convincing evidence that the newly accused product actually infringes. We have before us

directly competing evidence as to whether the cloth filter comes into contact with the

backwash shoe during operation. This disputed issue of fact prevents Aqua-Aerobic from

showing by clear and convincing evidence that the Redesigned System actually infringes the

patent. Aqua-Aerobic has failed to satisfy its burden of proof for an order of contempt. Any

infringement claims related to the Redesigned System must be presented in a new

infringement action, where the burden of proof will be a preponderance of the evidence and

Five Star can interpose its estoppel defense. 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s request for an order of contempt.

DATED this 27th day of April, 2012.

Case 2:07-cv-01251-FJM Document 60 Filed 04/27/12 Page 3 of 3