Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. v. Clean Chemistry, Inc.

This patent infringement litigation, Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. v. Clean Chemistry, Inc., centers on disputes over peracetic acid (PAA) generation technologies. The plaintiff, Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. (ETCS), an Arxada company, is an operating company that develops and manufactures innovative bromine technologies and peroxyacetic acid formulations for industrial water treatment, food and beverage processing, agriculture, oil & gas, and wastewater treatment. Enviro Tech was acquired by Arxada AG, a global specialty chemicals leader, in December 2021. The defendant, Clean Chemistry, Inc., is also an operating chemical technology company that provides water treatment and microbial control solutions, notably utilizing its PeroxyMAX™ oxidant technology across various water-intensive industries like energy, food and beverage, and pulp and paper.

The accused product and technology at the heart of the lawsuit is Clean Chemistry's PeroxyMAX™ process and its related peracetic acid formulations. Enviro Tech alleges that Clean Chemistry's methods for manufacturing PeroxyMAX and the resulting formulations infringe its intellectual property. This alleged infringement came to Enviro Tech's attention following the public approval of Clean Chemistry's Food Contact Notification (FCN) for PeroxyMAX on February 14, 2024. The four U.S. patents asserted by Enviro Tech are:

• U.S. Patent No. 9,737,072: "Methods and Compositions for the Generation of Peracetic Acid On Site at the Point-of-Use," broadly covering methods to generate non-equilibrium peroxyacetic acid solutions.
• U.S. Patent No. 8,546,449: "Methods and compositions for the generation of peracetic acid on site at the point-of-use," detailing methods and compositions for generating on-site peroxyacetic acid sanitizer using a hydrogen peroxide-acetyl precursor solution.
• U.S. Patent No. 9,363,997: "Methods and compositions for the generation of peracetic acid on site at the point-of-use," similar to the '072 patent, focusing on generating non-equilibrium peroxyacetic acid solutions.
• U.S. Patent No. 9,730,443: "Methods and compositions for the generation of peracetic acid on site at the point-of-use," also encompassing methods for generating non-equilibrium peroxyacetic acid solutions using specific chemical precursors.

The case is currently in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, presided over by Judge Alan D. Albright. This venue has historically been a significant hub for patent litigation, largely due to Judge Albright's active efforts to attract such cases, his expeditious trial schedules, and perceived plaintiff-friendly procedures. The case is notable not only for its involvement of two operating companies in the competitive peracetic acid market but also for the parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings initiated by Clean Chemistry against all four asserted patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). These IPRs, including IPR2025-01472, IPR2025-01458, IPR2025-01459, and IPR2025-01471, represent a direct challenge to the validity of Enviro Tech's patents, running concurrently with the district court infringement action, which has a trial scheduled for the week of December 28, 2026.

The patent infringement litigation, Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. v. Clean Chemistry, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01313, is currently open in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Key legal developments have occurred, including initial pleadings, significant pre-trial motions, claim construction, and the initiation of parallel PTAB proceedings. A trial is scheduled for December 2026.

Here is a chronological overview of the key legal developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2024-10-29: Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. filed its complaint, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,737,072, 8,546,449, 9,363,997, and 9,730,443.
• Clean Chemistry, Inc. filed an Answer to the complaint. No public records in the search results explicitly detail any counterclaims filed by Clean Chemistry, Inc.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• 2025-02-05: The case was reassigned to Judge Alan D. Albright for all proceedings.
• Prior to March 26, 2025: Clean Chemistry, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 13) was denied by Judge Alan D. Albright. The court found that Enviro Tech had stated plausible claims of infringement against the accused product and process.
• The search results indicate that Clean Chemistry did not seek a stay of the district court case pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, and the district court has a history of rarely granting such stays.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• 2025-09-04: Parties were to jointly email law clerks to confirm their Markman date.
• 2025-10-06: A Markman Hearing was held.
• Prior to March 26, 2025: A Claim Construction Order (Docket No. 47) was issued by the court. The parties had completed claim construction briefing prior to this order.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• 2025-10-07: Fact Discovery officially opened, and the deadline for serving Initial Disclosures per Rule 26(a) was set.
• 2025-11-27: The deadline for parties to serve Final Infringement and Invalidity Contentions was established.
• 2026-05-11: Fact discovery is scheduled to close. The parties have exchanged preliminary infringement and invalidity contentions and discovery requests.

Trial Events and Present Posture

• 2026-12-28 (week of): A jury trial is scheduled to commence.
• The case currently remains "Open." No verdict or post-trial motions have occurred as the trial has not yet taken place.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

Clean Chemistry, Inc. filed several Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions challenging the validity of the asserted patents:

• 2025-08-26: IPR2025-01458 was filed, challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,737,072.
• 2025-09-02: IPR2025-01472 was filed, challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,546,449. (Note: Some documents suggest August 27 for IPR2025-01458 and IPR2025-01472, but others more directly link 9/2/2025 to IPR2025-01472).
• IPR2025-01459 was filed, challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,730,443.
• IPR2025-01471 was filed, challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,363,997.

Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. filed briefs for discretionary denial in these IPR proceedings. Enviro Tech argued against institution based on several factors, including:

• The advanced stage of the district court case (Markman hearing held, discovery underway, and a trial date set).
• Clean Chemistry's delay in filing the IPRs, waiting nearly ten months after the district court case began.
• The significant overlap between issues raised in the IPR petitions and the parallel district court proceeding.
• The district court trial is scheduled to occur approximately 80 days before the projected statutory deadline for a final written decision in the IPRs.
• Clean Chemistry did not seek a stay of the district court case, and the district court judge has a low historical rate of granting such stays.

The PTAB's decision on institution for IPR2025-01472 was due around March 5, 2026. The effect of these IPRs on the litigation is still pending, contingent on the PTAB's institution decisions and subsequent proceedings.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc.

Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. is represented by attorneys from Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP in this patent infringement case (1:24-cv-01313). While specific roles like "lead counsel" or "local counsel" for each attorney within the district court case are not explicitly detailed in publicly available summaries without direct access to specific ECF filings, general information regarding their involvement and experience can be compiled.

The following attorneys from Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP have been identified as representing Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. in the district court case and/or related PTAB inter partes review (IPR) proceedings:

• Cameron C. Murphy

  • Role: Attorney (Intellectual Property Litigation)
  • Firm & Office: Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, San Diego, CA (also listed with an Atlanta, GA office in one directory, but San Diego is most consistent for his IP litigation profile)
  • Experience Note: Specializes in Intellectual Property Litigation and has been recognized as a "Rising Star" by Super Lawyers for Intellectual Property Litigation from 2019 and 2021-2024. He represents clients on Intellectual Property Litigation and Intellectual Property issues in California and is admitted to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

• Ann G. Fort

  • Role: Attorney, designated as "backup counsel" in related PTAB proceedings.
  • Firm & Office: Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, Atlanta, GA
  • Experience Note: A well-regarded attorney who frequently tries cases in both federal and state courts and is a provisionally recognized PTAB attorney.

• Anna Halsey

  • Role: Attorney, listed as "Respondent Counsel" in related PTAB proceedings.
  • Firm & Office: Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, Atlanta, GA
  • Experience Note: Eversheds Sutherland's intellectual property team provides patent prosecution, portfolio management, and IP counseling.

• Michael J. Woodson

  • Role: Attorney. Listed on PacerMonitor as counsel for Enviro Tech in the district court case.
  • Firm & Office: Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP (Specific office location not explicitly detailed for this case, but the firm has multiple offices with IP attorneys, including Austin, TX. The firm's main IP practice is co-chaired in Atlanta, and has key attorneys in San Diego).
  • Experience Note: Eversheds Sutherland's patent litigation practice handles IPRs at the PTAB, appeals before the Court of Appeals, and representation in competitor disputes and patent enforcement.

• Lindsay M. Kriz

  • Role: Attorney. Listed on PacerMonitor as counsel for Enviro Tech in the district court case.
  • Firm & Office: Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP (Specific office location not explicitly detailed for this case).
  • Experience Note: Eversheds Sutherland's patent litigation team handles various technologies, and their attorneys have in-depth technical knowledge and many are registered with the USPTO.

Potential Additional Counsel

• Seth R. Ogden, Ph.D.
  • Role: Lead Counsel (in a related Federal Circuit appeal)
  • Firm & Office: Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C., Nashville, TN
  • Experience Note: Focuses on patent litigation and trade secret protection, with extensive experience in the pharmaceutical, medical device, biotechnology, and chemical technology industries. He litigates intellectual property cases throughout the country, in inter partes review proceedings before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and in Section 337 investigations before the International Trade Commission, and has argued before the Federal Circuit. While he argued for Enviro Tech in a recent Federal Circuit appeal, his direct involvement as counsel of record in the Western District of Texas case (1:24-cv-01313) is not confirmed through the provided search results. Patterson Intellectual Property Law, P.C. has a broad litigation practice in federal district courts and federal appellate courts.

As of the current information, Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP appears to be the primary firm representing Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. in the district court. No specific local counsel from a separate firm dedicated solely to the Western District of Texas has been explicitly identified for the plaintiff from the provided search results, although Eversheds Sutherland has an office in Austin, TX, with intellectual property attorneys. The most precise roles and appearances would be detailed in the Electronic Case Filings (ECF) for the case in the Western District of Texas.

Clean Chemistry, Inc. is represented by attorneys from Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP in this patent infringement case. The counsel of record for the defendant include:

• Ann G. Fort

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • Office Location: Ann G. Fort is a partner at Eversheds Sutherland. While specific office location for Ann G. Fort isn't directly stated in the immediate search results for this case, her declaration in a related PTAB filing states she is a member of the Georgia State Bar and admitted to practice in various federal courts, including the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Federal, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits, and U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of Georgia, Middle District of Georgia, Eastern District of Wisconsin, and Eastern District of Texas.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Ms. Fort is an experienced litigation attorney with over 33 years of experience, including approximately 25 years litigating patent cases. She has appeared before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in various inter partes review (IPR) proceedings and is lead counsel in the co-pending district court litigation (this case) where U.S. Patent No. 9,730,443 is asserted.

• Michael J. Woodson

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: No specific details on his patent litigation experience were immediately available in the provided search results beyond his representation in this case.

• Cameron C. Murphy

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: No specific details on his patent litigation experience were immediately available in the provided search results beyond his representation in this case.

• Lindsay M. Kriz

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: No specific details on her patent litigation experience were immediately available in the provided search results beyond her representation in this case.