The Oakes patent claimed a peroxyacid antimicrobial composition containing peracetic, peroctanoic and octanoic acids.
In 1998 and 1999, Ecolab filed three patent applications directed to methods for applying peracetic acid alone or in combination with other paracides directly to meat products, including beef and poultry, to reduce microbial populations on the meat surface.
Ecolab filed motions for JMOL, a permanent injunction, enhanced damages, attorney fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, an accounting, and amendment of the judgment.
Ecolab further asserted the district court erred by denying its motions for a permanent injunction, enhanced damages, attorney fees, interest, and an accounting.
FMC further asserted the district court erred by misconstruing a claim term, by imposing an improper damages award, and by denying its requests for a permanent injection, prejudgment interest, and an accounting.
Both Ecolab and FMC asserted that the district court erred by denying their respective JMOL motions.
First, Ecolab argued that when the '676 patent claims were properly construed in light of FMC's prosecution history disclaimer, Inspexx did not infringe because the patent claims cover only solutions containing peracetic acid as the sole antimicrobial agent.
Second, Ecolab argued it did not infringe because Inspexx did not "sanitize" meat products under the patent's definition of that term.