Ecolab v. Reckitt Benckiser: Solidification Matrix Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
Ecolab, Inc. and Ecolab USA, Inc. filed suit against Reckitt Benckiser in Delaware District Court asserting two patents covering polycarboxylic acid polymer solidification matrix technology. The parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice after 718 days — a resolution that permanently closes the door on re-filing these specific claims.
Ecolab’s Two-Patent Infringement Action Ends by Mutual Stipulation
On 12 May 2023, Ecolab, Inc. and Ecolab USA, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Reckitt Benckiser in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:23-cv-00519). The complaint asserted two Ecolab patents — US8138138B2 and US8389464B2 — both directed to solidification matrix technology using polycarboxylic acid polymers, a formulation approach relevant to commercial cleaning and hygiene product applications where Reckitt Benckiser competes.
The case closed on 29 April 2025 via a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, signed by both parties. Dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits as a matter of law — Ecolab and Ecolab USA are permanently barred from reasserting the same infringement claims under US8138138B2 and US8389464B2 against Reckitt Benckiser in any future federal proceeding. The stipulated nature of the dismissal suggests the parties reached a negotiated resolution, though specific settlement terms are not part of the public record.
At 718 days, the litigation ran longer than many cases that resolve at the pleadings or early discovery stage, suggesting the parties may have engaged in substantive claim construction, discovery, or licensing negotiations before agreeing to close. The mutual stipulation format typically signals a commercially negotiated endpoint — potentially involving a licensing arrangement, product modification, or covenant not to sue — but the public docket does not confirm any of these possibilities. What remains clear is that Reckitt Benckiser faces no further exposure under these two patents from Ecolab.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 718 days
718 days — above the median for patent infringement cases in Delaware District Court
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulation means for both parties
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice bars all future re-filing
A stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is a jointly signed order that terminates litigation permanently. Unlike a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, this mechanism extinguishes Ecolab’s right to re-assert US8138138B2 and US8389464B2 against Reckitt Benckiser in any future federal action. Courts treat it as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes.
Permanent bar on re-filingEcolab accepts a permanent close — likely in exchange for commercial terms
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, Ecolab surrenders the ability to revive infringement claims under these two patents against Reckitt. This is a significant concession that patent holders rarely make without receiving something in return — such as a royalty-bearing licence, a lump-sum payment, or a product design commitment. The public record does not confirm any such arrangement, but the mutual stipulation format strongly suggests a negotiated resolution was reached.
Likely negotiated exitReckitt Benckiser obtains permanent protection from these patent claims
The with-prejudice dismissal provides Reckitt Benckiser with durable legal certainty: Ecolab cannot reassert US8138138B2 or US8389464B2 against it for past, present, or future conduct covered by the stipulation. This eliminates damages exposure and injunctive risk under these specific patents. If any licence or covenant not to sue was part of the deal, Reckitt also gains forward-looking freedom to operate in the solidification matrix product space.
Permanent infringement shieldSolidification matrix IP remains active — third parties remain at risk
The dismissal resolves only Ecolab’s claims against Reckitt Benckiser. US8138138B2 and US8389464B2 remain enforceable against other commercial cleaning and hygiene product manufacturers whose formulations may read on the polycarboxylic acid polymer solidification matrix claims. Companies working in institutional or consumer solid cleaning product formats should treat these patents as live enforcement assets and conduct FTO analysis accordingly.
Patents remain enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Ecolab, Inc | Company | Cleaning and hygiene technology company — holder of US8138138B2 and US8389464B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Ecolab USA, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Reckitt Benckiser | Individual | Reckitt Benckiser — global consumer health and hygiene products manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew L. Brown | Attorney | Counsel for Ecolab, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Bindu Ann George Palapura | Attorney | Counsel for Ecolab, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Caryn Cross | Attorney | Counsel for Ecolab, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cassandra Klingman | Attorney | Counsel for Ecolab, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jennifer Towle | Attorney | Counsel for Ecolab, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan A. Choa | Attorney | Counsel for Ecolab, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | W. Bryan Farney | Attorney | Counsel for Ecolab, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Ecolab, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Douglas J. Nash | Attorney | Counsel for Reckitt BenckiserSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Genevieve M. Halpenny | Attorney | Counsel for Reckitt BenckiserSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer Siew | Attorney | Counsel for Reckitt BenckiserSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John D. Cook | Attorney | Counsel for Reckitt BenckiserSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Naresh K. Kannan | Attorney | Counsel for Reckitt BenckiserSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicole Mastrocinque | Attorney | Counsel for Reckitt BenckiserSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Pilar Gabrielle Kraman | Attorney | Counsel for Reckitt BenckiserSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert M. Vrana | Attorney | Counsel for Reckitt BenckiserSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | ADARx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Law Firm | Representing Reckitt BenckiserSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP | Law Firm | Representing Reckitt BenckiserSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice is the operative legal instrument ending this litigation. Its with-prejudice character distinguishes it from a standard voluntary withdrawal: the dismissal carries the legal force of a final judgment, triggering res judicata and precluding Ecolab from re-litigating the same infringement claims against Reckitt Benckiser. The stipulated format — requiring signatures from both parties — indicates mutual agreement rather than unilateral action by the plaintiff, which typically reflects a negotiated commercial resolution whose specific terms remain confidential.
US8138138B2 & US8389464B2 — Polycarboxylic Acid Polymer Solidification Matrix
US8138138B2 (application no. US12/832201) and US8389464B2 (application no. US13/372560) both relate to solidification matrix technology using polycarboxylic acid polymers — a formulation chemistry that enables liquid or paste cleaning compositions to be formed into solid or semi-solid product forms. This approach is commercially significant in institutional and consumer cleaning contexts where solid formats offer dispensing control, reduced packaging, and improved logistics. The two patents together suggest a prosecution strategy designed to protect both the composition and method dimensions of the technology.
For the cleaning and hygiene sector, these patents represent a meaningful barrier to entry in the solid cleaning product format. Reckitt Benckiser’s exposure as a defendant suggests its product portfolio was considered by Ecolab to read on one or both sets of claims — a commercially significant allegation given Reckitt’s scale in household and commercial cleaning markets. Third-party formulators developing solid cleaning concentrates, warewashing blocks, or similar solid-format products using polycarboxylic acid polymer binders should treat both patents as active enforcement assets requiring claim-level FTO analysis.
Should your solid cleaning formulations be mapped against US8138138B2 and US8389464B2?
Any R&D team or product group developing solid or solidified cleaning concentrates that employ polycarboxylic acid polymers as structuring or binding agents should conduct a claim-by-claim freedom-to-operate review against both US8138138B2 and US8389464B2. The Reckitt litigation confirms Ecolab is prepared to assert these patents commercially. Companies in institutional warewashing, laundry, and surface care segments using similar polymer solidification chemistry are particularly exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows you to upload your formulation concept or product description and automatically map it against the independent and dependent claims of US8138138B2 and US8389464B2. The tool identifies claim overlap, flags potentially design-around pathways, and surfaces the closest prior art — enabling your IP and R&D teams to make informed decisions before committing to commercial scale-up in the solid cleaning format space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8138138B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Infringement Cases in Cleaning Chemistry and Formulation Technology
Explore related infringement actions involving cleaning chemistry and polymer formulation patents filed in Delaware District Court and comparable federal venues.
What this case signals for the cleaning technology IP landscape
A with-prejudice stipulation after 718 days suggests Ecolab’s solidification matrix patents carry enough commercial weight to compel a negotiated resolution.
With-prejudice stipulations after extended litigation signal commercial leverage
When a patent holder agrees to dismiss with prejudice after nearly two years of litigation, it typically reflects a commercially satisfactory outcome — not weakness. Ecolab’s willingness to permanently waive re-filing rights suggests it extracted value, whether financial or operational, from the negotiation. Competitors in the solid cleaning formulation space should not interpret this outcome as a signal that these patents lack teeth.
Delaware remains the preferred venue for cleaning chemistry patent enforcement
Ecolab’s choice of Delaware District Court is consistent with broad industry practice for asserting patents against consumer goods and chemical companies with registered Delaware entities. The court’s established patent case management procedures and experienced bench make it a predictable enforcement environment. Companies in the hygiene and cleaning sector holding similar formulation patents should assess Delaware as a primary venue for future enforcement actions.
Ecolab v Reckitt — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of both parties on 29 April 2025, after 718 days of litigation. Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Ecolab from re-asserting the same infringement claims under US8138138B2 and US8389464B2 against Reckitt Benckiser in future federal proceedings.
Ecolab asserted two U.S. patents: US8138138B2 (application no. US12/832201) and US8389464B2 (application no. US13/372560). Both patents cover solidification matrix technology using polycarboxylic acid polymers, relevant to solid-format cleaning and hygiene product formulations.
A stipulated dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is a jointly agreed termination that carries the legal weight of a final judgment. The plaintiff is permanently barred from re-filing the same claims against the same defendant. Courts treat it as res judicata. It typically reflects a negotiated resolution, though specific commercial terms are not made public.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice resolves only Ecolab’s claims against Reckitt Benckiser. Both US8138138B2 and US8389464B2 remain in force and are enforceable against other parties whose products or processes may read on the claims. Third-party manufacturers in the solid cleaning product sector should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against both patents.
Delaware is one of the most common venues for patent infringement suits involving large consumer goods and chemical companies, many of which are incorporated in Delaware. The court’s experienced patent bench and established case management procedures make it a strategically attractive forum for plaintiffs seeking efficient and predictable patent enforcement.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.