ControlTec, LLC v. Anthony, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

Parties and accused technology. ControlTec, LLC is the plaintiff and owner of the asserted patents; public litigation databases (Unified Patents, Ex Parte) classify it as an operating company rather than a classic non-practicing entity, though little else about its business is publicly documented, and the '181 patent originally issued to inventor Bradley W. Geuke (Google Patents listing: "US7207181B2 … 2007-04-24 … Bradley W. Geuke | Refrigeration unit condensation prevention"). The defendants are Anthony, Inc. and Hill Phoenix, Inc., two commercial-refrigeration companies that are both subsidiaries of Dover Corporation (with The Vanguard Group identified as an additional corporate parent in their Rule 7.1 statements, D. Del. dkt. ##11–12). The accused instrumentality is the "Anthony Energy Controller" (e.g., part no. 60-22715-0002), an anti-sweat/condensation control offered as standard equipment on Anthony's commercial refrigeration display-case doors — the 101, 401, Infinity, and Vista C series — which the complaint alleges combines a frame-temperature sensor, a dew-point sensing unit (monitoring ambient temperature and relative humidity), and a control unit that activates and deactivates door/frame heaters when the frame temperature nears the dew point to "anticipate" condensation before it forms (Compl. ¶¶23–35). ControlTec alleges the defendants adopted the design around the time of the Department of Energy's 2017 energy-efficiency rule updates for commercial refrigerators.

Patents and procedural posture. The complaint (filed July 26, 2024) asserts U.S. Patent No. 7,207,181 B2 ("Refrigeration unit condensation prevention," issued Apr. 24, 2007) and its divisional, U.S. Patent No. 7,421,847 B2 — the case metadata lists the '181 patent as the patent at issue, but the court's Patent/Trademark Report (dkt. #3) covers both. The '181 patent covers an apparatus/system that monitors display-case frame temperature plus ambient air temperature and relative humidity to activate frame/door heaters preemptively before condensation forms (independent claim 14, which uses a "control means" element implicating 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)); the '847 patent covers the corresponding method of placing a temperature sensor on the frame, mounting a dew-point sensor to monitor ambient conditions, and activating/deactivating the heater based on the anticipated condensation (independent claim 8). The case is pending before Judge Jennifer L. Hall in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (1:24-cv-00883-JLH); defendants are Dover Corporation subsidiaries, and Delaware venue is consistent with the court's status as a leading patent forum where Dover-affiliated entities are routinely amenable to suit. The docket shows the answer deadline was extended to October 3, 2024 (dkt. #10), with plaintiff's lead counsel from Haynes and Boone (Brian P. Egan as local counsel) and defendants represented by Susan E. Morrison; the case remains open with no final judgment or settlement on the public docket.

Why the case is notable. This litigation is tightly linked to parallel PTAB proceedings: Anthony, Inc. (identifying Dover and Hillphoenix as real parties-in-interest) petitioned for inter partes review of the '181 patent in IPR2025-00559 (claims 1–20) and of the '847 patent in IPR2025-00636. After ControlTec sought discretionary denial on the ground that both patents expired in July 2025 — before the institution deadline — Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart declined to deny institution (Paper 9, July 16, 2025), finding Anthony had shown a "material error" by the Office in overlooking the Carter reference (U.S. Patent No. 7,137,262) during prosecution; the Board subsequently instituted IPR2025-00559 (Aug. 25, 2025) and IPR2025-00636 (Sept. 30, 2025), both pending. The case is thus notable on several fronts: (1) it tests the viability of damages-only infringement suits over patents that expired during the litigation; (2) the Acting Director's refusal to discretionarily deny institution despite patent expiration has drawn industry commentary (Finnegan's PTAB blog, Aug. 11, 2025) as a significant § 325(d) material-error ruling; and (3) the asserted claims present classic § 112(f) means-plus-function construction issues over the accused controller's software logic, with the underlying dispute sitting at the intersection of energy-efficiency regulation and anti-sweat heater controls in commercial refrigeration — a market where Anthony and Hillphoenix are major players.

ControlTec, LLC v. Anthony, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00883 (D. Del.) — Key Legal Developments & Status

Important caveat up front: Public docket sources (Justia, UniCourt) only reflect filings through 2024-08-19 / 2024-09-24, respectively. I could not confirm from accessible sources the substance of the defendants' answer/counterclaims, any scheduling order, claim-construction briefing, or a stay order. Those items are flagged below as unconfirmed rather than invented. The PTAB record, by contrast, is well documented.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2024-07-26 — Complaint filed. ControlTec, LLC sued Anthony, Inc. and Hill Phoenix, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (D.I. 1), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,207,181 B2 ("the '181 patent") and 7,421,847 B2 ("the '847 patent") (titled "Refrigeration Unit Condensation Prevention") under 35 U.S.C. § 271, with a jury demand. Case assigned to Judge Jennifer L. Hall on 2024-07-31. D.I. 3 (patent report), D.I. 4 (Rule 7.1 statement).
• Accused products: "Anthony Energy Controllers" (e.g., part no. 60-22715-0002), standard equipment in Anthony/Hill Phoenix commercial refrigeration doors (101, 401, Infinity, Vista C series), using frame-temperature and dew-point sensing to activate/deactivate anti-sweat heaters. ControlTec asserted independent claims including claim 14 of the '181 patent (means-plus-function "control means" element) and claim 8 of the '847 patent (method claim).
• 2024-07-29 — Service effected on both defendants; answers due 2024-08-19 (D.I. 6, 7).
• 2024-08-02/08-05 — Pro hac vice admissions granted for ControlTec's Haynes & Boone, LLP counsel (Ian Rainey, Robert P. Ziemian, Charles M. Jones II, Stephanie Sivinski); Delaware local counsel Brian P. Egan (D.I. 8, 9).
• 2024-08-16/08-19 — Answer deadline extended to 2024-10-03 by stipulation, so ordered by Judge Hall (D.I. 10).
• 2024-08-19 — Defendants' Rule 7.1 statements filed, disclosing corporate parents Dover Corporation and The Vanguard Group (D.I. 11, 12). Defendant counsel of record: Susan E. Morrison (Fish & Richardson).
• Answer/counterclaims: Not confirmed from public sources (docket retrieval stops at 2024-08-19). Given the 2024-10-03 extended deadline, an answer was due around then, but its contents are unverified here.

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• No confirmed motions to dismiss, transfer, or summary judgment appear in the accessible docket excerpt.
• Stay pending IPR: No stay order is confirmed in public sources. Note, however, that the PTAB institution decisions expressly identify ControlTec, LLC v. Anthony, Inc., 1:24-cv-00883 (D. Del.) as the related district court matter, so the IPRs were pending in parallel with the litigation. A stay motion is plausible but not verified in the record I could access.

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

• No Markman order is confirmed. The accessible docket (through Aug./Sept. 2024) predates any claim-construction stage, and no ruling was found. The '181 patent's "control means" language (§ 112(f)) — flagged in the complaint analysis as a central scope question — would have been a natural Markman battleground had the case reached that stage.

4. Discovery Milestones

• No substantive discovery events (e.g., claim-construction discovery, expert reports, depositions) are confirmed from public sources. The case had barely moved past initial pleadings as of the last public docket snapshot (2024-09-24).

5. Trial / Verdict / Post-Trial

• None. No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion is reported. The case remained in early stages; the asserted patents expired on or about 2025-07-08 (approximately 18 and 17 years after issuance on 2007-04-24), which would eliminate injunctive relief and cap any damages at pre-expiration conduct.

6. Parallel PTAB Proceedings (IPR) — and Their Effect

Two inter partes reviews were filed by Anthony Inc. (with Dover Corporation and Hillphoenix, Inc. identified as real parties-in-interest) against ControlTec:

IPR2025-00559 ('181 patent) — Instituted

• 2025-01-30 — Petition filed challenging all claims 1–20 of the '181 patent.
• ControlTec filed a preliminary response (Paper 8) and a request for discretionary denial (Paper 7), arguing the patents were near/at expiration (both expired ~2025-07-08) and invoking § 325(d) (prior art already considered by the Office).
• 2025-07-16 — Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart denied discretionary denial (Paper 9), citing a material error by the Office during prosecution: the examiner issued a restriction requirement, ControlTec elected a group and filed a divisional, and both applications were allowed as first Office actions — allegedly overlooking the prior art "Carter" reference. The Acting Director held it an "appropriate use of Office resources to review the potential error" and referred the petitions to the Board.
• 2025-08-25 — Institution granted on all challenged claims (1–20) and all grounds (35 U.S.C. § 314), before APJs Scott A. Daniels, Barry L. Grossman, and Sean P. O'Hanlon. Status: pending/instituted as of today.

IPR2025-00636 ('847 patent) — Instituted

• 2025-02-24 — Petition filed (the '847 patent is a divisional of the '181 application).
• Same Director-level referral (Paper 9, 2025-07-16) and same material-error rationale.
• 2025-09-30 — Institution granted. Status: pending/instituted.

Effect on the litigation

• Both IPRs were instituted after the patents' expiration (2025-07-08) and after the district court case had been pending for roughly a year. The practical effect: any surviving district court claims are limited to pre-expiration damages — no ongoing royalty or injunction is available for the expired patents.
• If the Board ultimately finds the claims unpatentable, that would be binding in the district court litigation (estoppel/issue-preclusion effects for the named defendant/real parties-in-interest), potentially ending ControlTec's damages case. The IPRs remain pending, with no final written decisions yet identified.

7. Final Disposition / Present Posture

• No final judgment, settlement, or dismissal is reported. The district court case is open/pending as of the last public update; the parties' own IPR filings describe it as an active related proceeding.
• Present posture: an early-stage district court case (through initial pleadings only, per available docket data) running in parallel with two instituted IPRs on both asserted patents, both of which post-date patent expiration. The most likely next substantive district court event — a stay pending IPR — is unconfirmed in the record I could access, and no Markman or dispositive motion has been publicly docketed.

---

Source grounding: UniCourt docket summary and entries (D.I. 1–12); Justia docket (1:2024cv00883); PTAB Institution Decision IPR2025-00559 (Papers 2, 4, 7, 8, 9); Acting Director's Decision Referring Petitions to the Board, IPR2025-00559/00636, Paper 9 (2025-07-16); Unified Patents PTAB case list (institution dates 2025-08-25 and 2025-09-30); Finnegan "At the PTAB" blog and Mondaq commentary (2025-08-11/12) on the material-error referral and patent expiration. Unverified items (answer/counterclaim substance, stay motion, Markman) are identified as such.

Based on the docket record for ControlTec, LLC v. Anthony, Inc. et al., No. 1:24-cv-00883 (D. Del.), the plaintiff's counsel of record are as follows. The docket reflects five attorneys for ControlTec: one Delaware-licensed attorney who filed the case and the pleadings, and four out-of-state attorneys admitted pro hac vice from Haynes and Boone, LLP (D. Del. Dkt. 8, SO ORDERED Aug. 5, 2024; Dkt. 9 fee payment; Dkt. 1 complaint; Dkt. 6–7 summons returns, all docketed via Egan).

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

1. Brian P. Egan — Delaware Local Counsel

• Firm/Office: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, 1201 North Market Street, Wilmington, DE (firm website and Best Lawyers/Chambers profiles).
• Role: Delaware local counsel and the ECF filing attorney of record (filed the complaint, summons returns, and the pro hac vice motion). Under D. Del. LR 83.5(d), Delaware counsel must file all papers, so Egan is the docketed filer for the ControlTec filings.
• Experience: IP litigation practice group coordinator at Morris Nichols; former USPTO patent examiner (chemical arts); represents clients as lead and Delaware counsel in D. Del. patent cases and before the PTAB. Notable representations: Edwards Lifesciences (transcatheter valves), Intel (twelve-patent chip dispute, won SJ), Google, Thermo Fisher, Nichia (LEDs), and Delaware counsel for Amgen, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, Oracle, and Comcast. Former clerk to Judge Cynthia M. Rufe (E.D. Pa.).

2. Stephanie Sivinski — Pro Hac Vice (lead-capable trial counsel)

• Firm/Office: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX (partner; firm profile lists Dallas).
• Role: Admitted pro hac vice for ControlTec (Dkt. 8–9). One of the firm's primary patent litigation contacts; likely the first-chair/lead litigator given her trial practice.
• Experience: Trial lawyer with jury and bench trial wins in patent cases; defense verdict in E.D. Tex. (HiCon/Plastronics matter, ~$100M claimed); won invalidity verdict for a WAN technology company; summary judgment of non-infringement for an oil-and-gas operator against an NPE; claim-construction win affirmed by the Federal Circuit; Hatch-Waxman defense work. Recognized by Best Lawyers (IP litigation), Law360 "Legal Lion," and Managing IP IP STARS.

3. Robert P. Ziemian — Pro Hac Vice

• Firm/Office: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Denver, CO (partner).
• Role: Admitted pro hac vice for ControlTec (Dkt. 8–9).
• Experience: Patent and trademark enforcement with emphasis on ITC Section 337 and district court litigation; obtained a General Exclusion Order at the ITC (2017); part of team settling a patent case for $70M (one of top IP wins of 2009); handled Markman and infringement testing in a three-patent medical-device assertion. MIT undergrad; registered patent attorney.

4. Ian Rainey — Pro Hac Vice

• Firm/Office: Haynes and Boone, LLP (office location not confirmed in available sources; the PHV motion identifies him only as "of HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP").
• Role: Admitted pro hac vice for ControlTec (Dkt. 8–9).
• Experience: I could not locate a sufficiently reliable public bio for Rainey within the search results; no notable-case details are verified. I will not speculate on his background or office.

5. Charles M. Jones, II — Pro Hac Vice

• Firm/Office: Haynes and Boone, LLP (office location not confirmed in available sources; PHV motion identifies him only as "of HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP").
• Role: Admitted pro hac vice for ControlTec (Dkt. 8–9).
• Experience: No verified bio or notable-case details were obtained in my searches; same caveat as Rainey.

Notes and Caveats

• Source basis: The attorney list comes from the D. Del. docket as reflected on Justia Dockets and UniCourt (Dkt. 1, 6–9), plus firm bios for Egan (Morris Nichols), Sivinski, and Ziemian (Haynes Boone). I did not access PACER directly.
• Lead vs. of counsel designations: The docket does not formally label anyone "lead counsel." Based on practice patterns, Sivinski and Ziemian appear to be the out-of-state lead litigators, with Rainey and Jones as supporting trial/patent counsel, and Egan serving as required Delaware local counsel. This inference is not stated in any filing I found.
• Rainey and Jones: Their office locations and litigation histories could not be verified in the available sources. If precise roles matter (e.g., for service or conflicts), PACER's attorney docket entries or the Haynes Boone website should be checked directly.
• No in-house counsel for ControlTec appears on the docket. The company's Rule 7.1 disclosure (Dkt. 4) lists no parents or affiliates; the PTAB IPR papers (IPR2025-00559) identify ControlTec as the sole real party-in-interest, but no in-house attorney of record appears in the district court docket.
• Case status note: The case remains open before Judge Jennifer L. Hall. Related PTAB proceedings: IPR2025-00559 (instituted Aug. 2025 against the '181 patent) and IPR2025-00636 (instituted against the related '847 patent, which was also asserted per Dkt. 3 but is not listed in the case metadata).

Based on the available public docket records, here is what I can confirm regarding counsel of record for the defendants.

Defendant counsel identified on the docket

Susan E. Morrison — Delaware local counsel / attorney of record

• Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. — Wilmington, DE office (222 Delaware Avenue, 17th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801; managing principal of the firm's Delaware office)
• Role: The only defendant-side attorney appearing on the retrievable docket entries. She filed the defendants' August 16, 2024 Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond (D.I. 10) and the Rule 7.1 disclosure statements for both Anthony, Inc. and co-defendant Hill Phoenix, Inc. (D.I. 11–12), identifying Dover Corporation and The Vanguard Group as corporate parents. She is the CM/ECF filing attorney for the defense.
• Experience: ~20+ year patent trial lawyer who has tried cases in D. Del., D.N.J., E.D. Tex., N.D. Cal., and the ITC. Notable matters include serving as co-lead trial counsel in Wasica Finance GmbH v. Schrader International (D. Del.), which produced a $31 million jury verdict; representing Gilead in Gilead Sciences v. AbbVie (Harvoni® Hatch-Waxman litigation, D. Del.); and representing ResMed in the CPAP ITC investigation. She also regularly handles IPR/PGR work. (Source: Fish & Richardson attorney bio, fr.com; signature blocks on D. Del. filings, e.g., AlmondNet v. Lotame, 1:24-cv-00376, D.I. 25.)

Caveats and what could not be verified

• Docket coverage is limited. The Justia docket for 1:24-cv-00883 was last retrieved August 19, 2024, and the UniCourt page was last updated September 24, 2024. The answer deadline was extended to October 3, 2024 (D.I. 10, so ordered 8/19/2024), but I could not retrieve any post-September 2024 entries — i.e., no answer, no motions to dismiss, no defendant-side pro hac vice motions were visible in the accessible records. It is therefore possible that additional defense attorneys (e.g., out-of-state lead counsel appearing pro hac vice, or in-house counsel for Dover/Anthony) have entered appearances since, but I could not confirm any such names from the sources available to me.
• The case metadata flags a related IPR (IPR2025-00559) involving the same '181 patent; that PTAB proceeding often shares lead counsel with the district court defense (frequently Fish & Richardson for Dover entities), but the search results did not surface the IPR petition's attorney list, so I did not rely on it.
• In-house counsel: None identified in the accessible docket entries.
• Filings sealed: No sealed filings affecting counsel identification were identified; the limitation is simply that the public docket snapshots end in September 2024.

Bottom line: The sole confirmed counsel of record for Anthony, Inc. (and co-defendant Hill Phoenix, Inc.) in 1:24-cv-00883 is Susan E. Morrison of Fish & Richardson P.C. (Wilmington, DE). To confirm whether additional lead or pro hac vice counsel have appeared since October 2024, you would need to check PACER (case 1:24-cv-00883, D. Del., Judge Jennifer L. Hall) for entries after D.I. 12.

Sources: Dockets.Justia.com docket for 1:24-cv-00883; UniCourt case page (ControlTec, LLC v. Anthony, Inc. et al., updated 9/24/2024); Fish & Richardson attorney profile for Susan Morrison; DocketAlarm copy of D. Del. filing 1:24-cv-00376, D.I. 25 (signature block).