Silcotek Corp v. Waters Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: SilcoTek Corporation (Pennsylvania)
  • Defendant: Waters Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00773, D. Del., 06/30/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant's incorporation in the state of Delaware, alleged commission of infringing acts within the district, and a history of availing itself of the district by previously litigating patent matters there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's Premier line of high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) columns, which feature MaxPeak High Performance Surfaces technology, infringes two patents related to amorphous chemical vapor deposition coatings designed to make surfaces inert.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to specialized coatings for the interior surfaces of analytical chemistry components, such as HPLC columns, to prevent reactive analytes from adhering to or interacting with the metal surfaces, which can compromise measurement accuracy.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a long history between the parties, including a 2009 confidentiality agreement, multiple visits by Defendant to Plaintiff's facility, and Defendant's attendance at Plaintiff's technical presentations. The complaint also notes that Defendant filed a patent application in 2017 that referenced Plaintiff's Dursan® coating service, and that Plaintiff's counsel sent pre-suit notice letters to Defendant in 2024 regarding related patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2009-10-16	Waters and SilcoTek enter a Confidentiality Agreement.
2010-10-05	'732 Patent earliest priority date.
2015-09-01	'778 Patent earliest priority date.
2017-02-08	Waters requests meeting with SilcoTek employee.
2017-04-03	Waters requests tour of SilcoTek facility.
2017-09-08	Waters agrees to SilcoTek's non-disclosure agreement form.
2017-09-18	Waters files a provisional patent application referencing SilcoTek's Dursan® coating.
2017-10-17	Waters informs SilcoTek it will not sign the mutual non-disclosure agreement.
2017-10-18	Waters representatives visit SilcoTek facility.
2019-09-13	Waters representatives visit SilcoTek facility to discuss using Dursan® coating.
2020	Waters releases its "Premier" or "MaxPeak Premier" line of columns.
2024-06-21	SilcoTek's counsel sends copies of related patents/applications to Waters' counsel.
2024-11-19	SilcoTek's counsel sends copies of related patents/applications to Waters' counsel.
2025-05-06	U.S. Patent No. 12,291,778 issues.
2026-01-13	U.S. Patent No. 12,522,732 issues.
2026-06-30	Complaint filed.

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 12,291,778 - Liquid Chromatography System and Component, issued May 6, 2025

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section explains that conventional thermal chemical vapor deposition (CVD) processes for applying silicon coatings can suffer from "gas phase nucleation," which forms a "silicon dust" ʼ778 Patent, col. 2:1-4 This dust can compromise the integrity of the deposited coating, which is particularly problematic for highly sensitive applications like chromatography where surface inertness is critical ʼ778 Patent, col. 2:11-25
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a static (non-flow-through) CVD process for creating an amorphous silicon coating inside components like tubes ʼ778 Patent, col. 3:9-17 The process is designed to balance competing factors like temperature, pressure, and precursor concentration to favor deposition onto the substrate surface while minimizing particle-to-particle collisions in the gas phase that create dust ʼ778 Patent, col. 4:19-29 The result is a coating that is substantially free of larger dust particles.
• Technical Importance: This method allows for the creation of uniform, inert coatings on components with complex, non-line-of-sight geometries, which is crucial for improving the performance and reliability of high-sensitivity analytical instruments ʼ778 Patent, col. 1:45-54 ʼ778 Patent, col. 7:45-56

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 Compl. ¶34
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A tube, comprising: a substrate; and an amorphous coating on the substrate;
  • wherein the amorphous coating includes silicon;
  • wherein the amorphous coating is devoid of particles of silicon dust formed from gas phase nucleation that are greater than 3 micrometers.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 12,522,732 - Amorphous Coating, issued January 13, 2026

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background states that many substrate surfaces lack desired characteristics and are susceptible to wear, chemical adsorption, corrosion, and catalytic activity, especially in aggressive environments ʼ732 Patent, col. 1:21-30 Many known coatings do not provide adequate wear resistance ʼ732 Patent, col. 2:1-3
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-component, wear-resistant coating applied via chemical vapor deposition ʼ732 Patent, abstract The coating comprises carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and amorphous silicon and is deposited at a temperature greater than 300° C ʼ732 Patent, claim 2 The patent describes forming a carbosilane layer from dimethylsilane, which can then be oxidized and further treated to enhance properties like hardness, wear resistance, and inertness ʼ732 Patent, col. 4:5-18 ʼ732 Patent, col. 10:5-24
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a tunable, durable coating that protects components from both chemical and physical degradation, extending their operational life in demanding applications such as oil and gas drilling or analytical chemistry ʼ732 Patent, col. 2:5-12 ʼ732 Patent, col. 11:32-42

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 2 Compl. ¶50
• Essential elements of claim 2 include:
  • An article comprising: an anti-stiction, wear-resistant chemical vapor deposition coating deposited at a temperature of greater than 300° C.;
  • The coating itself comprises: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and amorphous silicon;
  • The article is one of a specific list, including a "tubing," "a sampling apparatus, or an analytical system."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's "Premier" or "MaxPeak Premier" lines of columns and equipment for HPLC applications, which incorporate "MaxPeak™ High Performance Surfaces ('HPS')" technology Compl. ¶¶22-23 The complaint specifically identifies the "Atlantis PREMIER BEH C18 AX Column" as an exemplary infringing product Compl. ¶36

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are HPLC columns whose HPS technology is advertised to "significantly reduce[] unwanted analyte/surface interactions that can lead to poor peak shape and losses in signal intensity" Compl. ¶22 Compl. Ex. D The complaint alleges the HPS technology is "formed by a vapor deposition of an ethylene-bridged siloxane polymer on metal substrates" Compl. ¶54 Compl. Ex. L These products are alleged to be direct competitors to Plaintiff's coated HPLC components Compl. ¶29

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'778 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A tube, comprising: a substrate;	The accused Atlantis PREMIER BEH C18 AX Column is alleged to be a tube comprising a 316 Stainless Steel substrate.	¶37; ¶38	col. 7:59-62
and an amorphous coating on the substrate;	The column is alleged to have an amorphous coating, a claim supported by an assertion of no active Raman spectroscopic peaks from testing.	¶40	col. 3:18-20
wherein the amorphous coating includes silicon;	The presence of silicon in the coating is alleged based on Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy results.	¶39; ¶40	col. 3:18-20
wherein the amorphous coating is devoid of particles of silicon dust formed from gas phase nucleation that are greater than 3 micrometers.	This limitation is allegedly met based on Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) test results of the tube interior, which reportedly show no dust particles over 3 micrometers.	¶41	col. 4:15-18

The complaint provides an X-Ray Fluorescence test result, shown in Figure 1, to support the allegation that the accused column's substrate is made of 316 Stainless Steel Compl. ¶39 To allege the coating is devoid of large silicon dust particles, the complaint includes SEM images, such as Figure 5, which purportedly show the surface of the accused product's tube after removal of packing materials Compl. ¶41

'732 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 2)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
An article comprising... wherein the article is a piston head... tubing... or an analytical system.	The accused Atlantis PREMIER column is alleged to be "tubing" and part of "a sampling apparatus, or an analytical system."	¶53	col. 12:60-67
an anti-stiction, wear-resistant chemical vapor deposition coating	The MaxPeak HPS technology is alleged to be this coating, based on Defendant's marketing that it is "designed to increase analyte recovery... by minimizing analyte/surface interactions."	¶54	col. 11:32-42
deposited at a temperature of greater than 300° C.,	The complaint alleges this element is met but does not provide direct evidence of the deposition temperature.	¶54	col. 8:43-46
the... coating comprising: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and amorphous silicon;	Testing is alleged to show the presence of carbon, oxygen, and silicon. Hydrogen's presence is asserted "upon information and belief" as it is undetectable by the test method (EDS).	¶55	col. 2:31-34

The complaint uses a Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy graph, shown in Figure 2, to allege the presence of an anti-stiction, wear-resistant coating containing carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and amorphous silicon on the accused column Compl. ¶54 Compl. ¶55

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: For the '732 patent, a potential dispute is whether Defendant's marketing claims about "minimizing analyte/surface interactions" legally and factually satisfy the claim requirement of an "anti-stiction, wear-resistant" coating, as that term is understood in the context of the patent.
  • Technical Questions: For the '778 patent, the negative limitation "devoid of particles... greater than 3 micrometers" will likely be a central issue. The analysis may question whether the SEM images provided are representative of all accused products and whether "devoid of" permits any tolerance or must be interpreted as an absolute zero. For the '732 patent, the complaint's assertion of hydrogen's presence "upon information and belief" because it is undetectable by EDS Compl. ¶55 raises an evidentiary question for the court.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from '778 Patent, Claim 1: "devoid of particles of silicon dust... greater than 3 micrometers"

• Context and Importance: This negative limitation is the central feature distinguishing the claimed invention from prior art that produced dust. The definition of "devoid of" will be critical to the infringement analysis; whether it means an absolute absence or a level below a certain threshold could determine the outcome.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define a numerical threshold in the claim itself, which a party could argue allows for some incidental or de minimis presence of particles.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification distinguishes the invention from processes that are merely "substantially free of silicon dust" by noting that certain industries are "extremely sensitive" and require even higher purity ʼ778 Patent, col. 2:5-15 This suggests "devoid of" was intended to mean a complete or near-complete absence, a stricter standard than "substantially free." Example 5 also quantifies a low particle count as a successful outcome, which could be used to support a quantitative, rather than absolute, interpretation '778 Patent, col. 11:10-17

Term from '732 Patent, Claim 2: "anti-stiction, wear-resistant... coating"

• Context and Importance: This composite term defines the functional properties of the claimed coating. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement allegation relies in part on interpreting Defendant's marketing language as meeting this technical requirement Compl. ¶54
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a wide range of applications, from analytical components to drilling tools, suggesting the term should be interpreted broadly to cover various mechanisms of stiction and wear across different technical fields ʼ732 Patent, col. 12:44-67
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides specific quantitative data for "wear resistance" and "coefficient of friction" in its examples and other claims (e.g., claim 1) ʼ732 Patent, col. 13:6-20 '732 Patent, claim 1 A party might argue these quantitative properties are necessary to meet the "wear-resistant" limitation. The term "anti-stiction" is also linked to a specific C:Si:O ratio in claim 1, which could be argued to inform the meaning of the term in claim 2 '732 Patent, claim 1

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of induced and contributory infringement for the '732 patent Compl. ¶59 but does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for such claims.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for both patents based on pre-suit knowledge Compl. ¶25 Compl. ¶45 Compl. ¶59 The allegations are supported by a detailed history of the parties' interactions, including Defendant's visits to Plaintiff's facility, attendance at technical presentations, and alleged review of Plaintiff's website which contains a patent list Compl. ¶¶13-21 Compl. ¶26 Further, the complaint alleges direct notice via letters from counsel to Defendant regarding related patents prior to the lawsuit Compl. ¶28

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

1. A question of evidentiary sufficiency: Does the testing evidence presented in the complaint (SEM, FTIR, EDS) definitively prove that the accused MaxPeak HPS coating possesses all the structural and compositional features of the asserted claims, particularly the absence of >3μm silicon dust particles required by the '778 patent and the presence of hydrogen required by the '732 patent?
2. A question of claim construction and scope: Can the claim term "anti-stiction, wear-resistant" in the '732 patent be met by interpreting the Defendant's marketing materials, or does the term require a more rigorous technical showing of specific properties as described and quantified within the patent's specification?
3. A question of intent: Do the detailed allegations of pre-suit interactions between the parties-including facility visits, technical discussions, and direct notice letters-provide a sufficient basis for a finding of willful infringement, potentially exposing the Defendant to enhanced damages?