Opinion ID: 505943
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiff's Conduct

Text: 39 The district court's requirement that Arrowhead establish that its process is the same as Ecolochem's and allege that its process is identical to Ecolochem's is equally a misapplication of the relevant legal principles to the facts. Though the court did not expressly require Arrowhead to establish or assert that its process infringed the patent, its language includes euphemisms that achieve the same result. It is at best incongruous to require that one seeking a declaration of noninfringement prove its process or product is the same as or identical to the patented process or product. 10 40 The district court misread Super Products Corp. v. D.P. Way Corp., 546 F.2d 748, 192 USPQ 417 (7th Cir.1976). The court in that case found a reasonable apprehension and an actual controversy, though defendant had not charged infringement and plaintiff had not yet produced its intended product. Though the court referred to the virtual identity of the intended and patent-described products in that case, id., 546 F.2d at 753, 192 USPQ at 421, it did not mention a claim and did not lay down as a rule of law that a declaratory plaintiff has a burden of showing in every case that its product or process is the same as that patented. It misinterprets precedent to convert a fact finding that with others supported a decision into a universal requirement for all future cases. In Super Products, for example, the court held that plaintiff's preparation for producing a product similar to that described in the patent and potentially infringing was sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's conduct prong of the test for reasonable apprehension. Id. at 753, 192 USPQ at 421; see International Medical Prosthetics Research Assocs., Inc. v. Gore Enter. Holdings, Inc., 787 F.2d 572, 575, 229 USPQ 278, 280 (Fed.Cir.1986) (enough to admit process might at trial be found an infringement) (emphasis in original). 41 Moreover, Arrowhead did establish unequivocally that its process was sufficiently similar to warrant apprehension of suit by Ecolochem. Arrowhead submitted an unchallenged affidavit of one Crabtree, describing Arrowhead's process as including the steps of adding hydrazine to water, passing the resulting liquid through activated carbon, and deionizing the liquid through ion exchange. 11 Claim 1 of the '492 patent reads: 42 A deoxygenation process comprising a first step of adding hydrazine to a liquid containing dissolved oxygen, a second step of passing said liquid through a bed of activated carbon to catalyze a reaction between said dissolved oxygen and said hydrazine whereby an amount of dissolved carbon contaminants are added to said liquid, and a third step of passing said liquid through an ion exchange resin selected from the group consisting of mixed bed resin and cation resin to remove at least said dissolved contaminants. 43 Ecolochem's sole attack on the Crabtree affidavit is that it fails to establish that Arrowhead is practicing the process of the patent. That attack is not only immaterial, as above indicated, but is directly opposed to Ecolochem's admission, later in its brief, that a declaratory judgment plaintiff need only show use or preparation for use of a process that might at trial be found to be an infringement. Indeed, a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction would not have been required if Arrowhead had stated in its complaint its belief that its process could not possibly be an infringement. International Medical Prosthetics, 787 F.2d at 575, 229 USPQ at 280. 44 Ecolochem's repeated assertions that Arrowhead did not disclose enough about its process comes with poor grace. Ecolochem knew enough about Arrowhead's process to tell Arrowhead it had reason to believe it was contemplating or using the patented process, and to tell the Arkansas court that (in Ecolochem's considered opinion) Arrowhead's process is an infringement. 12 Moreover, Ecolochem has nowhere specified that it does not interpret its patent as infringed by the three-step process set out in the Crabtree affidavit, either directly or under the doctrine of equivalents. 45 Lastly, in respect of plaintiff's conduct, we are not dealing here with a mere plan or wish of Arrowhead to practice its process. It is doing precisely that. The high cost of litigation makes the bringing of a declaratory judgment action a step not lightly undertaken, yet defendant's conduct has obviously created a most reasonable and compelled apprehension that continuing to sell its process could subject Arrowhead to liability for substantial damages.