Blue Box Air Inc v. BioCoil Pro, LP et al.

Case Overview

Blue Box Air Inc., a Dallas-based company, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against BioCoil Pro, LP, and its principal, Ross Lampe. The suit, filed on April 22, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleges that the defendants' HVAC cleaning products infringe on a Blue Box Air patent. The case is in its early stages, with summonses having been issued to the defendants shortly after the complaint was filed. While public information does not definitively classify Blue Box Air as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or a practicing company, the litigation targets BioCoil Pro, a Fort Worth-based operating company that markets and sells probiotic-based HVAC coil cleaners. Ross Lampe, an individual also named as a defendant, has a background as an inventor and founder of a self-storage management software company.

The technology at the center of the dispute involves methods for cleaning HVAC systems. Blue Box Air asserts its U.S. Patent No. 10,480,875, which generally relates to systems and methods for HVAC coil cleaning. BioCoil Pro's accused products, "BioCoil HOME" and "BioCoil Pro," are cleaners that use beneficial probiotics and surfactants to break down organic buildup on HVAC coils, aiming to restore efficiency and improve air quality without harsh chemicals. The complaint alleges that the manufacturing, use, and sale of these products infringe upon the claims of the '875 patent.

The case has been assigned to Chief Judge Reed O'Connor in the Fort Worth division of the Northern District of Texas. This venue is notable as it has seen an increase in patent case filings and has implemented specialized procedures to manage them, including a patent pilot program. While not as prolific as the Eastern or Western Districts of Texas for patent litigation, the Northern District has become a significant forum. Judge O'Connor has presided over various patent cases, including those involving motions to dismiss based on patent ineligibility under Alice and motions to stay pending patent reexaminations. The case's notability stems from its position within the competitive HVAC maintenance and indoor air quality market, a sector with increasing technological innovation. The involvement of a probiotic-based technology also presents a modern application of biotechnology to a traditional industry. The litigation history of the parties and the asserted patent is not yet extensive, making this a new assertion campaign to monitor.

Legal Developments and Case Outcome

As of May 1, 2026, the patent infringement lawsuit Blue Box Air Inc v. BioCoil Pro, LP et al. is in its earliest procedural stage. Having been filed only nine days prior, significant legal developments have not yet occurred.

Filing & Initial Pleadings (2026-04-22)

The case commenced on April 22, 2026, when Blue Box Air Inc. filed its Complaint for patent infringement in the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth division. The complaint (Dkt. 1) alleges that BioCoil Pro, LP, and Ross Lampe infringe U.S. Patent No. 10,480,875. On the same day, the plaintiff filed requests for the Clerk to issue summons to both defendants (Dkt. 2, 3).

As of this date, the court docket does not indicate that the defendants have been served, nor have they filed an answer, counterclaims, or any other responsive pleading. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants have 21 days to file a response after the official service of the summons and complaint.

Pre-Trial Motions, Claim Construction, and Discovery

There have been no substantive motions filed by either party. The case has not advanced to key pre-trial stages such as a Markman hearing for claim construction or significant discovery milestones. These events typically occur many months after the initial pleadings are settled.

Trial and Final Disposition

The case remains open and has not been scheduled for trial, nor has it been resolved through settlement, dismissal, or judgment.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A comprehensive search of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database shows that no Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) petitions have been filed challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,480,875. Consequently, there are no parallel administrative proceedings that might prompt a motion to stay the district court case.

As of May 1, 2026, the following counsel from the law firm Foley & Lardner LLP have appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, Blue Box Air Inc. The initial complaint and requests for summons were filed by Robert T. Slovak.

---

Firm: Foley & Lardner LLP

• J. Michael Thomas

  • Role: Lead Counsel (presumed)
  • Firm Office: Dallas, Texas
  • Note on Experience: Thomas is a trial attorney and partner whose practice focuses on complex commercial and intellectual property litigation, and he has first-chair jury trial experience in patent cases.

• Robert T. Slovak

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm Office: Dallas, Texas
  • Note on Experience: A partner with over 25 years of experience, Slovak has a broad commercial trial practice that includes intellectual property disputes and theft of trade secrets.

As of May 1, 2026, counsel for the defendants, BioCoil Pro, LP, and Ross Lampe, has not yet appeared on the court docket.

The case was filed on April 22, 2026, and summonses were requested the same day. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants typically have 21 days to file a response (such as an answer or a motion to dismiss) after they have been formally served with the complaint. Given that only nine days have passed since the initial filing, it is procedurally normal for the defendants to have not yet responded or for their attorneys to have not yet filed a notice of appearance.

No filings from the defendants are visible on the public docket at this time.