Deerpoint Grp. v. Agrigenix, LLC

• Decision Date: 30 December 2021
• Docket Number: 1:18-CV-0536 AWI BAM
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Parties: DEERPOINT GROUP, INC., Plaintiff v. AGRIGENIX, LLC, SEAN MAHONEY, and CUSTOM AG FORMULATORS, INC., Defendants

DEERPOINT GROUP, INC., Plaintiff
v.
AGRIGENIX, LLC, SEAN MAHONEY, and CUSTOM AG FORMULATORS, INC., Defendants

No. 1:18-CV-0536 AWI BAM

United States District Court, E.D. California

December 30, 2021

ORDER REGARDING CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION

This is a business dispute involving intellectual property and trade secrets between Plaintiff Deerpoint Group, Inc. (“Deerpoint”) and Defendants Agrigenix, LLC (“Agrigenix”), Sean Mahoney (“Mahoney”), and Custom Ag Formulators, Inc. (“Custom Ag”) (collectively “Defendants”). Currently pending before the Court is a claims construction matter. Deerpoint and Custom Ag have submitted extensive briefing regarding the meaning of 10 terms within Patent No. 9, 856, 179 filed January 2, 2018 (“the ‘179 Patent”). Defendants Agrigenix and Mahoney have limited their participation to the joint pre-hearing statement (Doc. No. 129) and have submitted no additional briefing or expert opinions.^[1] The parties have agreed on the meaning of three of the terms, but dispute the meaning of the remaining seven. The Court took the matter under submission without holding a hearing. The Court now issues this order which construes the 10 terms at issue in the ‘179 Patent.

1

GENERAL BACKGROUND

Deerpoint owns the ‘179 Patent. The ‘179 Patent is entitled “Method and Composition of Agricultural Potassium-Plus Fertigation.” Fertigation refers to methods of adding fertilizers to irrigation water for crops.

The “Abstract” of the ‘179 Patent reads:

An agricultural potassium-fertigation method for emitter-irrigation potassium-plus fertigation feeds a potassium-plus nutrient feedstock comprised of potassium formate and additional yield-assist constituent(s) and water to an active emitter-irrigation system discontinuously, at levels of 0.15 to 50 gal./min, during one to six nonconsecutive irrigation days

‘179 Patent - Abstract.^[2] In the Summary section, the ‘179 Patent provides in relevant part:

The present invention provides a method of discontinuous emitter-irrigation potassium-plus fertigation (“discontinuous potassium-plus fertigation”) wherein a potassium-plus nutrient feedstock comprised of potassium formate, at least one non-potassium-formate constituent that is beneficial to the crop's nutrient-uptake and/or soil condition (“additional yield-assist constituent”), which preferably is a macro-nutrient, and water is charged to an active emitter-irrigation system to form treated irrigation water wherein the potassium-plus nutrient feedstock has a high potassium-nutrient content, has a high organic carbon content, has a minimal amount of water, has no or negligible essential yield-extraneous constituent such as sulfate, has no essential yield-adverse constituent such as degradable thiosulfate, phosphate when fed under phosphate-precipitation conditions or chloride and has no constituent that could aggravate the plugging potential of treated irrigation water

Id. at (Summary) col. 3 ll. 21-38; see also ‘179 Patent col. 4 ll.6-27. The ‘179 Patent has 20 claims. See id. Two of these claims are alleged to have been infringed, Claims 14 and 16.

Claim 14 reads:

A treated irrigation water comprising a potassium-plus nutrient feedstock and irrigation water, wherein said potassium-plus nutrient feedstock is comprised of from 10 to 50 wt. percent potassium formate and from 1 to 35 wt. percent additional yield-assist constituent(s).

Id. at col. 12 ll. 27-31. Claim 16 reads:

The treated irrigation water according to claim 14 wherein from 90 to 100 weight percent of said additional yield-assist constituent(s) are selected from the group consisting of N (as N), P (as P2O5), acid and combinations thereof.

Id. at col. 12 ll. 37-41.

2

In the fertilizer industry, fertilizers are classified by their “NPK” numbers - N is the amount of nitrogen expressed in terms of nitrogen, P is the amount of phosphorous expressed in terms of P205 (phosphorous pentoxide), and K is the amount of potassium expressed in terms of K2O (potassium oxide). Nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium are the three primary plant nutrients and may be provided through many different source compounds. See Krauter 2d Dec. ¶ 12. Because the sources of these three primary nutrients can vary widely, the nutrients are expressed in a uniform manner by reference to the equivalent amounts of potassium in K2O and phosphorus in P205. See id. & ¶ 14. To determine the actual amount of the nutrients, one multiplies the listed amount of phosphorus by 0.44 (the molecular weight of phosphorus in P2O5) and the listed amount of potassium by 0.83 (the molecular weight of potassium in K2O). See Maitra 1st Dec. ¶ 44. While expressing the total amount of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium through the N-P-K convention, fertilizer labels also identify other nutrients and include a derivation section that identifies the actual source compound/substance of nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, and other nutrients. See Kleinman 1st Dec. Exs. 5, 7; see also Krauter 2d Dec. ¶ 17. The ‘179 Patent contains seven examples of potassium-plus nutrient feedstocks and includes NPK values for the seven exemplars. See Table 1 of the ‘179 Patent.

CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION FRAMEWORK

Claim construction is a matter of law. UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Research & Dev. Co., 837 F.3d 1256, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “Claim construction seeks to ascribe the meaning to a claim term as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.” Iridescent Networks, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 933 F.3d 1345, 1350 (9th Cir. 2019).

In construing claims, courts look first to, and primarily rely on, the intrinsic evidence, which includes the claims themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history of the patent. Personalized Media Communs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 952 F.3d 1336, 1340 (9th Cir. 2020). First, claim construction begins with words of the claims themselves. Endo Pharms., Inc. v. Actavis LLC, 922 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The starting point is how a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would understand a claim term at the time of patent application because

3

inventors are typically skilled in the field of invention and patents are addressed to and intended to be read by others of skill in the pertinent art. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). A person of ordinary skill in the art reads a claim term in the context of not only the particular claim in which it appears, but also in the context of the entire patent, including the specification. Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc., 935 F.3d 1370, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Claim terms are to be construed consistently throughout a patent. Phil-Insul Corp. v. Airlite Plastics Co., 854 F.3d 1344, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Second, the “specification” includes both the written description and the claims of the patent. Cisco Sys., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, 928 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Because a patent is a fully integrated instrument that consists principally of a specification that concludes with the claims, the claims must be read in view of the specification. Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Thus, the specification “is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. When the specification explains and defines a term without ambiguity or incompleteness, “there is no need to search further for the meaning of the term.” Sinorgchem Co. v. ITC, 511 F.3d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, courts do not read limitations from the specification, including embodiments, into a claim. See Bradium Techs. LLC v. Iancu, 923 F.3d 1032, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Mastermine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 874 F.3d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Sometimes there is a fine line between reading a claim in light of the written description/specification and reading a limitation into the claim from the written description/specification. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., 822 F.3d 1312, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “Specifications teach. Claims claim.” Super Guide Corp. v. Direc TV Enters., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elect. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1127 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Third, the prosecution history is the “entire record of the proceedings in the Patent Office from the first application papers to the issued patent.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Unifrax I LLC, 921 F.3d 1060, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “[T]he prosecution history can often inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of

4

prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. For example, through prosecution history, a patentee may define a claim term or disavow a meaning or scope to which he would otherwise have an exclusive right by virtue of the claim language. Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 10 F.3d 1375, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Although “secondary to the intrinsic evidence, courts my rely on extrinsic evidence, which consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history (including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises) in construing a claim term. Continental Circuits, 915 F.3d at 799. However, “[i]n most situations, an analysis of the intrinsic evidence alone will resolve any ambiguity in a disputed claim term.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “When an analysis of intrinsic evidence resolves any ambiguity in a disputed claim term, it is improper to rely on extrinsic evidence to contradict the meaning so ascertained.” Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., 319 F.3d 1357, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see...