Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 719 Filed 04/05/24 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 18044
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 19-1334 (CJB)
`
`
`
`
`
`MIDWEST ENERGY EMISSIONS CORP.
`and MES INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO., et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A
`MATTER OF LAW AS TO NO INDUCED INFRINGEMENT, NO CONTRIBUTORY
`INFRINGEMENT, AND NO WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`Kenneth L. Dorsney (#3726)
`Cortlan S. Hitch (#6720)
`MORRIS JAMES LLP
`500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 888-6800
`kdorsney@morrisjames.com
`chitch@morrisjames.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`CERT Operations IV LLC,
`CERT Operations V LLC,
`CERT Operations RCB LLC,
`CERT Operations II LLC,
`Senescence Energy Products, LLC,
`Springhill Resources LLC,
`Buffington Partners LLC,
`Bascobert (A) Holdings LLC,
`Larkwood Energy LLC,
`Cottbus Associates LLC,
`Marquis Industrial Company, LLC,
`Rutledge Products, LLC
`
`
`
`Dated: April 5, 2024
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 719 Filed 04/05/24 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 18045
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`Legal Standard ..................................................................................................................... 1
`II.
`III. CERT is entitled to JMOL of no inducement of infringement. ........................................... 1
`A finding that CERT took an affirmative act to encourage a power plant to directly
`A.
`infringe is not supported by substantial evidence. ...................................................................... 2
`A finding that CERT had specific intent to cause infringement is not supported by
`B.
`substantial evidence. ................................................................................................................... 9
`A finding that CERT caused the power plants to perform all steps of the claimed methods
`C.
`is not supported by substantial evidence. .................................................................................... 9
`IV. CERT is entitled to JMOL of no contributory infringement. ............................................ 12
`A finding that refined coal was especially made and adapted for use in an infringement
`A.
`is not supported by substantial evidence. .................................................................................. 12
`The record lacks substantial evidence CERT knew that refined coal did not have
`B.
`substantial non-infringing uses and was especially made an adapted for an infringing use..... 14
`A finding that refined coal lacks substantial non-infringing uses is not supported by
`C.
`substantial evidence. ................................................................................................................. 14
`V.
`CERT is entitled to JMOL of no indirect infringement based on lack of knowledge. ...... 17
`VI. CERT is entitled to JMOL of no willful infringement. ..................................................... 17
`VII. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 719 Filed 04/05/24 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 18046
`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.,
` 682 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 8
`
`Bayer HealthCare LLC v. Baxalta Inc.,
` 989 F.3d 964 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .................................................................................................. 17
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
` 575 U.S. 632 (2015) ............................................................................................................ 14, 19
`
`Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc.,
` 946 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................ 17
`
`Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd.,
` 909 F.3d 398 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................... 2
`
`Environmental Manufacturing Solutions, LLC v. Peach State Labs, Inc.,
` No. 6:09-cv-395-Orl-28DAB, 2011 WL 1262659 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2011) ........................ 15
`
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Inc.,
` 773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................. 2, 9
`
`Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.,
` 563 U.S. 754 (2011) ........................................................................................................... passim
`
`Golden v. United States,
` 955 F.3d 981 (2020) .................................................................................................................. 10
`
`Goodman v. Pennsylvania Tpk. Comm’n,
` 293 F.3d 655 (3d Cir. 2002) ....................................................................................................... 7
`
`Hodosh v. Block Drug Co., Inc.,
` 833 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ................................................................................................ 15
`
`HZNP Medicines LLC v. Actavis Lab’ys UT, Inc.,
` 940 F.3d 680 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Pat. Litig.,
` 681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................................... 15, 17
`
`In re Lemington Home for the Aged,
` 777 F.3d 620 (3d Cir. 2015) ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 719 Filed 04/05/24 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 18047
`
`
`
`Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.,
` 572 U.S. 118 (2014) .................................................................................................................. 11
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
` 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................ 17
`
`MEMC Electronic Mtls, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Mtls Silicon Corp.,
` 420 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................. 8
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. DataTern, Inc.,
` 755 F.3d 899 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................ 2, 3, 6
`
`Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.,
` No. CV 19-1334-CJB, 2023 WL 7411710 (D. Del. Nov. 3, 2023) .......................................... 15
`
`Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC,
` 883 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................ 16
`
`Nat'l Presto Indus. v. W. Bend Co.,
` 76 F.3d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................... 8
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
` 843 F.3d 1315 (Fed.Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................... 5, 9
`
`Roche Diagnostics Corp. v. Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC,
` 30 F.4th 1109 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................... 8
`
`Schillinger v. United States,
` 155 U.S. 163 (1894) .................................................................................................................. 10
`
`Takeda Pharm. U.S.A., Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Corp.,
` 785 F.3d 625 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................... 4
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc.,
` 978 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................. 1
`
`United States v. Gilead Scis., Inc.,
`
` No. CV 19-2103 (MN), 2024 WL 1251282 (D. Del. Mar. 22, 2024) ....................................... 1
`
`University of Texas Southwestern Med. Center v. Nassar,
` 570 U.S. 338 (2013) .................................................................................................................. 11
`
`Wrinkl, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`
` No. 20-cv-1345-RGA, 2021 WL 4477022 (D. Del. Sep. 30, 2021) .................................. 17, 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 719 Filed 04/05/24 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 18048
`
`
`
`ZapFraud, Inc. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc.,
` 528 F. Supp. 3d 247 (D. Del. 2023) .......................................................................................... 17
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c) .................................................................................................................. 13, 14
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) ....................................................................................................................... 1
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) ....................................................................................................................... 1
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 ............................................................................................................................ 1
`
`Treatises
`
`W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts 265 (5th ed.
`1984) ......................................................................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 719 Filed 04/05/24 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 18049
`
`
`
`A
`
`Trial transcripts, dated February 26-March 1, 2024
`
`Table of Exhibits1
`
`PTX-001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,343,114
`
`PTX-003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,596,517
`
`PTX-077
`
`PTX-102
`
`PTX-193
`
`PTX-196
`
`PTX-199
`
`PTX-202
`
`PTX205
`
`PTX-208
`
`PTX-211
`
`12/1/2018 Larkwood Fuel Company Refined Coal Facility Independent
`Engineering Technical Due Diligence Review by Sargent & Lundy for
`J.P.Morgan (CERT-0017228)
`
`11/1/2019 Spring Hill Resources Refined Coal Facility Located at the Big
`Cajun II Power Plant Independent Engineering Technical Due Diligence by
`Sargent Lundy for J.P. Morgan (CERT-0023675)
`
`2/13/2013 Refined Coal Sales Agreement (Antelope Valley Station) Between
`Marquis Industrial Company, LLC and Basin Electric Power Cooperative
`(CERT_0009823)
`
`9/21/2011 Refined Coal Sales Agreement (Big Cajun II Generation Facility)
`Between Spring Hill Resources, LLC and Louisiana Generating LLC
`(CERT_0008315)
`
`11/4/2011 Refined Coal Sales Agreement (Rush Island Project Generation
`Facility) Between Buffington Partners, LLC and Union Electric Company
`D/B/A Ameren Missouri (CERT_0008446)
`
`12/20/2013 Amended and Restated Refined Coal Sales Agreement (WA Parish
`Generation Facility) between Senescence Energy Products, LLC, and NRG
`Texas Power LLC (CERT_0007346)
`
`5/10/2019 Refined Coal Sales Agreement (Coleto Creek Power Station)
`Between Bascobert (A) Holdings, LLC and Coleto Creek Power, LLC
`(CERT_0008039)
`
`12/20/2013 Amended and Restated Refined Coal Sales Agreement (Limestone
`Generation Facility) Between Rutledge Products, LLC and NRG Texas Power
`LLC (CERT_0017134)
`
`3/11/2014 Amended And Restated Refined Coal Sales Agreement (Labadie
`Energy Center) Between Larkwood Energy, LLC and Union Electric Company
`D/B/A Ameren Missouri (CERT_0008205)
`
`
`1 Defendants will work with Plaintiffs to submit the trial transcripts and admitted trial exhibits cited
`in post-trial briefing in the format the Court prefers after post-trial briefing is complete. The
`physical trial exhibits are available for the Court’s inspection upon request.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 719 Filed 04/05/24 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 18050
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PTX-214
`
`PTX-232
`
`PTX-545
`
`PTX-685
`
`PTX-688
`
`PTX-689
`
`PTX-690
`
`12/20/2013 Amended and Restated Refined Coal Sales Agreement (Laramie
`River Station) Between Cottbus Associates, LLC and Basin Electric Power
`Cooperative (CERT_0008871)
`
`5/19/2015 Email Barr Linton to Daniel Murray et al. RE: Draft of proposed
`chem mod amendment (CERT-0012805)
`
`12/1/2018 Senescence Energy Refined Coal Facility Independent Engineering
`Technical Due Diligence Review by Sargent & Lundy for J.P.Morgan (CERT-
`0017480)
`
`3/11/2016 Email Jeff Green to Leah Schaatt et al. re: FW: Limestone
`Production Questions from Enterprise (CERT-0014763)
`
`3/10/2016 Email Jeff Green to tfriddle@pathfindercap.com et al. re: FW:
`Potential investor question on Labadie Hg article (CERT-0013695)
`
`11/1/2019 Bascobert Energy Refined Coal Facility Located at the Coleto Creek
`Power Plant Independent Engineering Technical Due Diligence by Sargent &
`Lundy for J.P.Morgan (CERT-0023407)
`
`12/1/2018 Rutledge Products Refined Coal Facility Independent Engineering
`Technical Due Diligence by Sargent & Lundy for J.P.Morgan (CERT-
`0017369)
`
`PTX-693
`
`3/10/2015 Email Barr Linton to Adam Korfhage et al. re: Request by Basin
`Electric (CERT-0012785)
`
`DTX-1514
`
`Flash Report (Spreadsheet) (CERT-0039422)
`
`DTX-1968
`
`Chart (CERT-0043026)
`
`DTX-1980
`
`10/4/2010 IRS Notice 2010-54 Production Tax Credit for Refined Coal
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 719 Filed 04/05/24 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 18051
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`CERT moves under Rule 50(b) for judgment as a matter of law that it is not liable for
`
`induced infringement, contributory infringement, or willful infringement. As detailed below, the
`
`record lacks legally sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict on those issues.
`
`II.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`After a jury trial, a party may move for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”). Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 50(b). Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate when “a reasonable jury would not have
`
`a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1).
`
`A renewed JMOL is appropriate when a party “show[s] that the jury’s findings, presumed or
`
`express, are not supported by substantial evidence or, if they were, that the legal conclusion(s)
`
`implied [by] the jury’s verdict cannot in law be supported by those findings.” United States v.
`
`Gilead Scis., Inc., No. CV 19-2103 (MN), 2024 WL 1251282, at *2 (D. Del. Mar. 22, 2024)
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted); see In re Lemington Home for the Aged, 777 F.3d 620, 626 (3d
`
`Cir. 2015) (“[A] judgment notwithstanding the verdict may be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b)
`
`only if, as a matter of law, the record is critically deficient of that minimum quantity of evidence
`
`from which a jury might reasonably afford relief.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
`
`III. CERT is entitled to JMOL of no inducement of infringement.
`
`The Court should grant JMOL that CERT did not induce infringement. “A defendant is
`
`liable for ‘induced infringement under § 271(b) if the defendant took certain affirmative acts to
`
`bring about the commission by others of acts of infringement and had ‘knowledge that the induced
`
`acts constitute patent infringement.’” TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278, 1286 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2020) (quoting Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 765–66 (2011)).
`
`Inducement requires “evidence of active steps taken to encourage direct infringement; mere
`
`knowledge . . . that [a product] may be put to infringing uses is not enough.” HZNP Medicines
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 719 Filed 04/05/24 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 18052
`
`
`
`LLC v. Actavis Lab’ys UT, Inc., 940 F.3d 680, 701 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The accused inducer must
`
`cause the direct infringer to perform each step of the method. Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Systems,
`
`Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`All asserted claims include the steps of injecting an activated carbon sorbent (“ACI”) and
`
`“separating the mercury-sorbent composition from the mercury-containing gas” or “collecting
`
`mercury in the mercury-containing gas with a sorbent added to the mercury-containing gas.” PTX-
`
`001 at cl. 25; PTX-0003 at cl. 1. Mr. O’Keefe tied the separating or collecting step at the power
`
`plants that allegedly infringe to use of an ESP or baghouse. Ex. A (Trial Tr.) at 565:15-566:2,
`
`607:3-13, 612:9-18. “In order to succeed on a claim of inducement, the patentee must show . . .
`
`that the alleged infringer knowingly induced infringement and possessed specific intent to
`
`encourage another’s infringement.” Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co.,
`
`Ltd., 909 F.3d 398, 407 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). The record lacks any,
`
`much less substantial, evidence that CERT took affirmative acts with the requisite intent or caused
`
`the power plants’ use of ACI or an ESP or baghouse to separate activated carbon from the flue gas.
`
`A.
`
`A finding that CERT took an affirmative act to encourage a power plant to
`directly infringe is not supported by substantial evidence.
`
`1.
`
`Selling refined coal without additional expression or instruction is not
`an act of encouraging or inducing infringement as a matter of law.
`
`
`Multiple times the Federal Circuit has emphasized that liability for inducement requires
`
`active encouragement of all steps of a method claim. In Microsoft Corp. v. DataTern, Inc., 755
`
`F.3d 899 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit relied on the absence of instruction from the alleged
`
`inducer Microsoft to find there was no justiciable controversy as to induced infringement between
`
`Microsoft and DataTern. Microsoft’s customers were alleged to directly infringe DataTern’s
`
`patents when using Microsoft’s software. Id. at 905. Claim charts provided to Microsoft’s
`
`customers “extensively refer[ed] to Microsoft . . . functionality,” but as to one patent, DataTern
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 719 Filed 04/05/24 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 18053
`
`
`
`identified instructions from a third party as evidence that two of the method steps were performed.
`
`Id. at 902 & 905 n.3. But “[t]o prove inducement of infringement . . . the patentee must show that
`
`the accused inducer took an affirmative act to encourage infringement with the knowledge that the
`
`induced acts constitute patent infringement. Absent the knowledge and affirmative act of
`
`encouragement, no party could be charged with inducement.” Id. at 904 (citing Global-Tech, 563
`
`U.S. at 765) (emphasis added). The Federal Circuit concluded that the DataTern identifying
`
`instructions from a third party to use Microsoft’s software to perform a step did “not impliedly
`
`assert that Microsoft induced . . . infringement.” Id. at 905. Without an instruction from Microsoft
`
`for each step, there was no evidence that Microsoft actually “encouraged the acts accused of direct
`
`infringement, and simply selling a product capable of being used in an infringing manner [was]
`
`not sufficient to create a substantial controversy regarding inducement.” Id. In contrast, the Federal
`
`Circuit found a live controversy for inducement existed for another patent for which DataTern
`
`identified an express instruction (i) by Microsoft (ii) for each and every step of the claim. Id.
`
`HZNP applies the same reasoning. There, a simple method of use of a pain relief ointment
`
`was claimed: “[t]he user must: (1) apply the inventive formulation, (2) wait for the area to dry, and
`
`(3) apply sunscreen, insect repellant, or a second topical medication.” HZNP, 940 F.3d at 702. The
`
`accused product was a generic version of the patentee’s formulation. The accused inducer’s
`
`instructions for the accused product—which were “essentially the same” as the patentee’s, id. at
`
`686—directed the user to apply the formulation and then “[w]ait until area is completely dry before
`
`covering with clothing or applying sunscreen, insect repellent, cosmetics, topical medications, or
`
`other substances.” Id. at 699-700. The instructions, which “track[ed] closely with the asserted
`
`claims,” id. at 701, thus explicitly described an infringing use.
`
`Nonetheless, on de novo review, the Federal Circuit affirmed a summary judgment of no
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 719 Filed 04/05/24 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 18054
`
`
`
`inducement because there was no encouragement of all steps of the method. “To prove inducement,
`
`a plaintiff must present evidence of active steps taken to encourage direct infringement.” Id. at
`
`701 (emphasis added). The accused inducer must “‘encourage[], recommend[], or promote[]
`
`infringement.’ Merely describing the infringing use, or knowing of the possibility of infringement,
`
`will not suffice; specific intent and action must be shown.” Id. at 702 (quoting Takeda Pharm.
`
`U.S.A., Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Corp., 785 F.3d 625, 630–31 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). The requisite
`
`encouragement to induce infringement was lacking because the accused inducer’s instructions
`
`“only require[d] the first step of th[e] method, nothing else.” Id. at 702. The remaining instructions
`
`left the decision to the user, “operat[ing] in an ‘if/then’ manner: if the user wants to cover the
`
`treated area with clothing or apply another substance over it, then the patient should wait until the
`
`area is dry.” Id. That conditional warning “does not encourage infringement, particularly where
`
`the label does not require subsequent application of sunscreen, insect repellant, or a second
`
`medication.” Id. Rather, to establish inducement, the evidence must show the accused inducer
`
`actually “instruct[ed] users to perform the patented method.” Id. (citation omitted).
`
`Microsoft and HZNP dictate that as a matter of law the sale of a material with knowledge
`
`it will be put to an infringing use (even describing that use) is not sufficient to establish an
`
`affirmative act to encourage infringement required for inducement. However, an insufficient
`
`showing only of knowledge of future infringing use is all that exists in the record here. The sale of
`
`refined coal with knowledge of ACI use was the only evidence of inducement offered by Mr.
`
`O’Keefe during the period of alleged infringement. Ex. A at 690:16-25.
`
`Applying Microsoft and HZNP, a finding of inducement cannot stand. Here, not only is
`
`there no evidence of an instruction from CERT to any power plant to use ACI or an ESP or
`
`baghouse, but the unrebutted evidence is that CERT never suggested that they do so. Ex. A at
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 719 Filed 04/05/24 Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 18055
`
`
`
`939:4-941:2. More importantly, Mr. O’Keefe identified only third-party instructions—those from
`
`EPA via its MATS regulations—as the basis for the power plants’ performance of the patents’ ACI
`
`step. Ex. A at 558:22-559:6, 563:4-18, 605:11-18, 606:20-607:2, 691:6-692:5, 701:25-702:20.
`
`Under Microsoft, Plaintiffs’ identification of third-party instruction for performance of the
`
`ACI step negates any inducement claim against CERT as a matter of law. In fact, CERT’s role is
`
`far more removed from the direct infringement than that of Microsoft. In Microsoft, the customers
`
`performed each step of the method using the software Microsoft supplied to them, 755 F.3d at 902,
`
`905, but looked to third-party instructions on how to perform certain steps. Here, there is no
`
`evidence of CERT providing any instructions. In addition, the power plants use materials (ACI)
`
`or devices (ESP/baghouse) supplied by third parties to perform the relevant method steps, while
`
`CERT has never offered ACI, ESPs, or baghouses for sale. Ex. A at 657:4-658:17, 691:6-16,
`
`939:4-17, & 987:14-988:9. Under Microsoft, the power plants’ use of materials supplied by a third
`
`party to comply with instructions from another third party cannot constitute inducement by CERT.
`
`The Supreme Court’s statement that inducement “premises liability on purposeful,
`
`culpable expression and conduct” mandates the same result. Global-Tech, 563 U.S. at 763
`
`(emphasis added).2 No evidence of “culpable expression” by CERT was presented at trial. The
`
`sale of refined coal knowing it will be put it to an infringing use is not act of “expression” or
`
`“encouragement” sufficient to support inducement under Global-Tech or Microsoft.
`
`A comparison to HZNP confirms there can be no finding of inducement. In HZNP, the
`
`alleged inducer described every step of the claimed method in its instructions to customers. Even
`
`
`2 See also Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 843 F.3d 1315, 1331
`(Fed.Cir. 2016) (“The Supreme Court has explained [in Global–Tech] that the term ‘induce’ as it
`is used in § 271(b) means to lean on; to influence; to prevail on; to move by persuasion. Each
`definition requires successful communication between the alleged inducer and the third-party
`direct infringer.”) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 719 Filed 04/05/24 Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 18056
`
`
`
`that was insufficient for inducement. Unlike HZNP, there was no evidence that CERT even
`
`described or suggested (conditional or otherwise) that a power plant use ACI or use a baghouse or
`
`ESP. Ex. A at 939:4-941:2 As to the separating or collecting step, Mr. O’Keefe admitted that
`
`Defendants did not encourage any power plant to use an ESP or baghouse. Ex. A at 657:19-24,
`
`658:4-17. That alone is dispositive. As to ACI, there is no evidence of encouragement. The only
`
`evidence is that CERT’s power plant customers, like the users in HZNP, decided whether or not
`
`to use ACI as part of their emissions program—some did and some did not. Ex. A at 957:13-963:5,
`
`967:2-974:17, 976:6-978:25 & 1047:22-1048:19; PTX-6853; PTX-6884. Even power plants that
`
`chose to use ACI to reduce emissions could turn off ACI, for maintenance or cleaning, and still
`
`combust refined coal with ACI disabled. Ex. A at 524:6-525:21, 662:2-663:22. ACI was used only
`
`because a power plant chose to do so to comply with the EPA’s requirements. Ex. A at 558:22-
`
`559:6, 563:4-18, 605:11-18, 606:20-607:2.
`
`That CERT sold refined coal (with the same formulation, see infra) to power plants before
`
`and after they used ACI and to plants that never used ACI at all demonstrates that CERT did not
`
`require any plant to use it. Ex. A at 957:13-963:5, 967:2-974:17, 976:6-978:25, 1047:22-1048:19.
`
`But an expression from the alleged inducer successfully communicated to the direct infringer
`
`requiring it to perform each step is essential, without which the inducement claim fails. See Global-
`
`Tech, 563 U.S. at 763; HZNP, 940 F.3d at 702; Microsoft, 755 F.3d at 905. Any such
`
`encouragement here came not from CERT but rather from the EPA via MATS. In the absence of
`
`substantial evidence that CERT actually encouraged performance of all steps of the claimed
`
`
`3 PTX-685 shows that by March 2016 NRG informed CERT that NRG had “installed activated
`carbon injection equipment to increase mercury control” at Limestone.
`4 PTX-688 shows that by March 2016 Ameren’s compliance plan for mercury control included
`activated carbon injection at Labadie and Rush Island.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 719 Filed 04/05/24 Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 18057
`
`
`
`method, the jury’s inducement finding cannot stand.
`
`2.
`
`None of the other record evidence constitutes substantial evidence of an
`affirmative act of encouragement required for inducement.
`
`
`The record otherwise lacks substantial evidence that any CERT entity took an affirmative
`
`act to encourage a power plant to use ACI. On that point, Mr. O’Keefe identified the sale of refined
`
`coal at a loss, rate optimization of bromine addition and ACI, fly ash benefits from using refined
`
`coal, and indemnity agreements. Ex. A at 630:6-635:5.5 There is no evidence that selling refined
`
`coal at a loss was tied to ACI in any way. Rather, power plants combusted refined coal with and
`
`without ACI, infra § IV.C, and power plants that used ACI continued to do so after they ceased
`
`combusting refined coal, Ex. A at 701:25-702:20. Evidence of rate optimization and fly ash
`
`benefits may show CERT’s knowledge that refined coal may be used with ACI. But knowledge of
`
`and even describing an infringing use without further affirmative acts to encourage performance
`
`of all aspects of the claimed method is not sufficient. HZNP, 940 F.3d at 702.
`
`Mr. O’Keefe also identified evidence predating July 9, 2019, such as Sargent & Lundy
`
`reports, CERT emails, and sales agreements, Ex. A at 624:10-627:12 (discussing PTX-77,-102,-
`
`545,-689 and -690); 628:7-629:10 (discussing PTX-232); 631:8-632:15 (discussing PTX-693);
`
`633:20-635:5 (discussing PTX-202); 668:12-16 & 669:2-14, 670:2-22. As an initial matter, these
`
`documents (and not all of them) showed only the insufficient knowledge of ACI use, not a required
`
`act of encouragement. See HZNP, 940 F.3d at 702. Moreover, all would be legally insufficient to
`
`constitute an act of inducement. Acts occurring prior to the issuance of a patent or the damages
`
`
`5 CERT has challenged the admission of Mr. O’Keefe’s testimony in its corresponding motion for
`new trial. If the Court determines the evidence was improperly admitted, the Court should ignore
`this evidence in ruling on JMOL. Goodman v. Pennsylvania Tpk. Comm’n, 293 F.3d 655, 665 (3d
`Cir. 2002) (“The rule in this Circuit is that erroneously admitted evidence should not be considered
`when ruling on motions for judgment as a matter of law.”) The absence of this evidence further
`confirms that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding of infringement.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 719 Filed 04/05/24 Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 18058
`
`
`
`period cannot constitute acts of inducement. Roche Diagnostics Corp. v. Meso Scale Diagnostics,
`
`LLC, 30 F.4th 1109, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Nat'l Presto Indus. v. W. Bend Co., 76 F.3d 1185, 1196
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1996) abrog. on other grounds by Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assoc.,
`
`Inc., 682 F.3d 1003, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`With respect to indemnity agreements as possible proof of infringing acts, there is no
`
`evidence linking those agreements to infringement of the asserted patents. Indemnity agreements
`
`generally do not evidence an intent to induce infringement. MEMC Electronic Mtls, Inc. v.
`
`Mitsubishi Mtls Silicon Corp., 420 F.3d 1369, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2005). No evidence takes these
`
`agreements outside of that general proposition. Mr. O’Keefe provided no evidence linking any
`
`indemnity agreement to an intent to cause infringement of the asserted patents. Id. (“As in Hewlett–
`
`Packard, the indemnity provision in this case may have facilitated the sale of the accused wafers,
`
`but there is no evidence that the primary purpose of the agreement was to induce Samsung Japan
`
`to infringe the '302 patent.” (emphasis added)). To the contrary, every indemnity provision
`
`identified by Mr. O’Keefe long predated (by at least five years) issuance of, and CERT’s
`
`knowledge of, the asserted patents. D.I. 279 at 19 (dismissing claims of pre-suit knowledge against
`
`CERT); Ex. A at 622:3-6; 634:13-635:5 (citing PTX-202 – dated December 2013), 665:7-667:20
`
`(identifying dates for all refined coal sales agreements). Thus, the primary purpose of any
`
`indemnity agreement could not have been to induce a power plant to infringe the asserted patents.
`
`Ultimately, none of the evidence adduced by Plaintiffs constitutes substantial evidence of
`
`an affirmative act of encouragement by CERT that a power plant use ACI or a baghouse or ESP.
`
`There is no evidence in the record that CERT ever instructed a power plant to do so, conditioned
`
`the sale of refined coal on doing so, or otherwise encouraged a power plant to begin using or
`
`continue using ACI, a baghouse, or an ESP. The record establishes only that CERT intended for
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 719 Filed 04/05/24 Page 16 of 28 PageID #: 18059
`
`
`
`power plants to purchase and use refined coal. Every seller—including every defendant seller in
`
`every inducement case—desires and intends for its customer to stay in business and to buy more
`
`of its products. But the d