IP Law Daily, PATENT—W.D. Wash.: Microtube heat exchangers manufacturer’s claims against competitor narrowed, (Dec 10, 2025)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

The complaint for declaratory judgment failed to state claims for correction of inventorship or trade secret misappropriation.

International Mezzo Technologies Inc., a designer and manufacturer of microtube heat exchangers, stated a claim seeking a declaration that competitor Airborne ECS LLC improperly obtained its patent relating to microtube heat exchangers for an aircraft environmental control system due to inequitable conduct before the USPTO, the federal district court in Seattle, Washington, has decisioned. However, International Mezzo stated claims for correction of inventorship, misappropriation of trade secrets; breach of contract, conversion, and violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (LUTPA) (International Mezzo Technologies Inc. v. Airborne ECS LLC, No. 2:24-cv-01368-JNW (W.D. Wash. Dec. 8, 2025)).

Background. International Mezzo Technologies Inc. (Mezzo) is a leader in designing and manufacturing microtube heat exchangers. Airborne ECS, LLC, now known as Intergalactic Spaceworx, LLC (Intergalactic) is a competitor in the microtube heat exchanger market. In late March 2017, Intergalactic contacted Mezzo about potentially using Mezzo’s laser welded microtube heat exchangers in an aircraft’s environmental control system. The parties entered a NDA prohibiting them from directly or indirectly, disclosing confidential information to a third party, or using the confidential information except in furtherance of the potential arrangement or as authorized by Mezzo. After entering the NDA, Mezzo provided Intergalactic with confidential information regarding the technologies and allowed Intergalactic employees to tour Mezzo’s facilities. However, in May 2018, Intergalactic informed Mezzo that its services were not needed, ending any existing customer relationship.

In 2020, Intergalactic applied for a patent with the USPTO for, among other things, a microtube heat exchanger wherein the microtubes are laser welded to the end plates. On December 6, 2022, the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No. 11,519,670 (’670 Patent) to Intergalactic, covering, (1) a microtube heat exchanger; (2) for an environmental control system of an aircraft; (3) including laser welds for coupling the microtubes to heat exchanger end plates. Within a year, Intergalactic issued a cease and desist to Mezzo, attempting to enforce the ’670 Patent against Mezzo.

Mezzo sued Intergalactic on November 21, 2023, in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, asserting nine causes of action: (1) declaratory judgment of invalidity of the ’670 Patent; (2) declaratory judgment of invalidity of the ’670 Patent for breach of duty of candor to the USPTO; (3) declaratory judgment of invalidity of the ’670 Patent for failure to name the correct inventor; (4) correction of inventorship of the ’670 Patent; (5) misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA); (6) misappropriation of trade secrets under the Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act (LUTSA); (7) breach of contract; (8) conversion; and (9) violation of LUTPA. The case was transferred to this district court under a forum-selection clause contained in the parties’ NDA. Intergalactic moved for judgment on the pleadings on Counts two, and four to nine of the complaint, arguing they lack adequate factual allegations to plausibly suggest that Mezzo was entitled to relief.

Inequitable conduct claim. Mezzo’s second cause of action sought a declaration that the ’670 Patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct before the USPTO. Mezzo alleged that “several entities involved with the application, including Intergalactic, Taylor Fausett and Nicholas F. Herrick-Kaiser, knowingly withheld material information from the USPTO with the intent to deceive.” Intergalactic argued that Mezzo’s claim failed as a matter of law because the complaint did not “identify the specific who, what, when, where, and how” of the alleged omissions committed before the USPTO. The district court disagreed because Mezzo’s inequitable conduct claim had been pleaded with sufficient particularity to avoid judgment on the pleadings. Therefore, the motion was denied as to Count two.

Correction of inventorship. Mezzo’s fourth cause of action sought an order directing the Director of the USPTO to issue a certificate correcting the inventorship of the ’670 Patent. Intergalactic argued that Mezzo lacked Article III standing to bring this claim. The district court agreed because the complaint did not establish that Mezzo suffered a harm to its financial or reputational interests due to the allegedly mistaken inventorship assigned to Patent ’670. First, any claim that Mezzo was injured by not being named the “true inventor” of the technology is incorrect as a matter of law because it is well-settled that corporations like Mezzo cannot be named as the actual inventor of a patent. Second, the district court noted that Mezzo may have standing to assert its correction claim were it assigned putative ownership rights to a patent by the original inventor. However, the complaint made no allegations regarding assignment of the patent to Mezzo. Thus, the motion was granted as to Count four.

Failure identify its trade secrets with sufficient particularity. In Counts’ five and six, Mezzo brought a pair of trade secret claims against Intergalactic under both the federal DTSA, and LUTSA. Under either statute, Mezzo must allege the existence of a trade secret and misappropriation. Mezzo admitted that its complaint did not provide the specific trade secret content arguing that doing so would undermine the very secrecy at issue.

The district court noted that courts do recognize this tension and permit plaintiffs to describe trade secrets by their general nature or category. Mezzo named “proprietary information, data, and methods of manufacture relating to the design and manufacture of microtube heat exchangers” as the trade secrets at issue. However, this description encompasses the entirety of Mezzo’s business. Mezzo did not assert any specific examples of manufacturing processes, schematics, methodologies, tools, or components that would allow Intergalactic the “concrete identification” needed to prepare its defense. The district court noted that without more information, Mezzo’s trade secret misappropriation claims threaten to take unfair advantage of the statutes by requiring Intergalactic to respond to “broad discovery requests” and then allow Mezzo to “identify its trade secrets after the fact by tailoring its identification of trade secrets to the discovery it receives.” Thus, the motion was granted as to Counts five and six.

Breach of contract claim. In Count seven, Mezzo alleged that Intergalactic breached the parties’ NDA by using Mezzo’s confidential information to develop competing products and not the contemplated business arrangement. Mezzo alleged that the parties entered into an NDA, but the complaint provided no additional information or language pertaining to the contract at issue. The district court found that this is not enough for the court to assess the sufficiency of Mezzo’s breach of contract claim. Therefore, the motion was granted as to the breach of contract claim

Conversion claim. Intergalactic moved to dismiss Mezzo’s conversion claim (Count eight). The district court noted that Mezzo did not oppose dismissal and consented to dismissal of Count eight without prejudice. Accordingly, the motion was granted as to the conversion claim.

Violation of LUTPA. In Count nine, Mezzo alleged that Intergalactic violated LUTPA by threatening Mezzo with patent infringement knowing that the ’670 Patent is invalid. The district court found that Intergalactic seeking to protect its presumptively valid ’670 Patent is the type of “sound business practices, the exercise of permissible business judgment, or appropriate free enterprise transactions,” that are not prohibited or punished by LUTPA. Therefore, the motion was granted as to Mezzo’s LUTPA claim.

Accordingly, the district court granted Intergalactic’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in part and dismissed counts four to nine without prejudice and with leave to amend.

The Case is No. 2:24-cv-01368-JNW.

Judge: Whitehead, J.

Attorneys: Emily Gummer (Carver Darden Koretzky Tessier Finn Blossman & Areaux) for International Mezzo Technologies Inc. Anneli Kawaoka (Jones Day) for Airborne ECS LLC.

Companies: International Mezzo Technologies Inc.; Airborne ECS LLC; Intergalactic Spaceworx, LLC

Cases: Patent TechnologyInternet TradeSecrets WashingtonNews