Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Oystar USA, Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 February 2021
• Docket Number: 1:10-CV-00780 EAW, 1:12-CV-00904 EAW, 1:13-CV-00892 EAW, 1:13-CV-01118 EAW
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
• Parties: STEUBEN FOODS, INC., Plaintiff, v. OYSTAR USA, INC., et al., Defendants. Steuben Foods, Inc., Plaintiff, v. GEA Process Engineering, Inc., and GEA Procomac S.P.A., Defendants. Steuben Foods, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Nestlé, U.S.A., Defendant. Steuben Foods, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Jasper Products, LLC, Defendant.

520 F.Supp.3d 310

STEUBEN FOODS, INC., Plaintiff,

v.OYSTAR USA, INC., et al., Defendants.

Steuben Foods, Inc., Plaintiff,

v.GEA Process Engineering, Inc., and GEA Procomac S.P.A., Defendants.

Steuben Foods, Inc., Plaintiff,

v.Nestlé, U.S.A., Defendant.

Steuben Foods, Inc., Plaintiff,

v.Jasper Products, LLC, Defendant.

1:10-CV-00780 EAW, 1:12-CV-00904 EAW, 1:13-CV-00892 EAW, 1:13-CV-01118 EAW

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

Signed February 18, 2021

Joseph L. Stanganelli, Pro Hac Vice, Barclay Damon, LLP, Boston, MA, Olivia E. Marbutt, Pro Hac Vice, Kent & Risley LLC, Alpharetta, GA, Thomas B. Cronmiller, Barclay Damon, LLP, Rochester, NY, William Cook Alciati, Gardella Grace P.A., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff Steuben Foods, Inc.

Kimberly A. Colaiacovo, Barclay Damon, LLP, Buffalo, NY, Robert M. Andalman, Pro Hac Vice, A&G Law LLC, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff JBT ICS Solutions US, Inc.

Michael A. Brady, Hagerty & Brady, Buffalo, NY, Christopher W. Dawson, Pro Hac Vice, Matthew B. Walters, Pro Hac Vice, Michael B. Hurd, Pro Hac Vice, Hovey Williams LLP, Overland Park, KS, for Defendants.

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge

INTRODUCTION

In the above-captioned actions, which have been consolidated for purposes of discovery and claim construction, plaintiff Steuben Foods, Inc. ("Plaintiff") has sued the defendants for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq. Each matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy for hearing and disposition of all non-dispositive motions or applications, supervision of discovery, and to hear and report upon dispositive motions for consideration by the district judge. (Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00780 (the "Oystar Action"), Dkt. 100; Civil Action No. 12-cv-00904 (the "GEA Action"), Dkt. 82; Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00892 (the "Nestlé Action"), Dkt. 18; Civil Action No. 13-cv-01118 (the "Jasper Action"), Dkt. 18).

Currently pending before the Court are objections to a Report and Recommendation entered by Judge McCarthy on March 16, 2020, regarding construction of the disputed claim terms "aseptically disinfecting" and "at a rate greater than 100 bottles per minute" (Oystar Action, Dkt. 373; GEA Action, Dkt. 599; Nestlé Action, Dkt. 431; Jasper Action, Dkt. 317) (the "March 16th R&R") and objections to a Report and Recommendation entered by Judge McCarthy on September 3, 2020, regarding construction of the disputed claim terms "a feedback control system for maintaining aseptic bottling conditions," "disinfecting the bottles ... with hot hydrogen peroxide spray," and "a residual level of hydrogen peroxide ... less than 0.5 PPM." (Oystar Action, Dkt. 394; GEA Action, Dkt. 619; Nestlé Action, Dkt. 452; Jasper Action, Dkt. 338) (the "September 3rd R&R") (collectively the "R&Rs"). In particular, Plaintiff has filed objections to the March 16th R&R (Oystar Action, Dkt. 375; GEA Action, Dkt. 601; Nestlé Action, Dkt. 434; Jasper Action, Dkt. 319) and Plaintiff and defendant Jasper Products LLC ("Jasper") have filed objections to the September 3rd R&R (Oystar Action, Dkt. 398; Oystar Action, Dkt. 399; GEA Action, Dkt. 623; Nestlé Action, Dkt. 459; Jasper Action, Dkt. 342; Jasper Action, Dkt. 343). Also pending before the Court is defendant Nestlé USA, Inc.’s ("Nestlé") motion to strike a notice of supplemental authority filed by Plaintiff. (Nestlé Action, Dkt. 453).

For the reasons discussed below, the Court: (1) denies Nestlé’s motion to strike; (2) adopts Judge McCarthy's recommendation as to the claim term "aseptically disinfecting"; (2) modifies Judge McCarthy's recommendation as to the claim term "at a rate greater than 100 bottles per minute"; (3) declines to adopt Judge McCarthy's recommendation as to the claim term "a feedback control system for maintaining aseptic bottling conditions" and finds that this term takes its plain and ordinary meaning in the art; (4) adopts Judge McCarthy's recommendation as to the claim term "disinfecting the bottles ... with hot hydrogen peroxide spray"; and (5) adopts Judge McCarthy's recommendation as to the claim term "a residual level of hydrogen peroxide ... less than 0.5 PPM." The Court further modifies the referral orders in this case to provide that dispositive matters shall be heard directly by the undersigned.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Additional factual and procedural background related to the instant actions is set forth in this Court's Decision and Order dated September 16, 2019 (Oystar Action, Dkt. 355; GEA Action, Dkt. 577; Nestlé Action, Dkt. 409; Jasper Action, Dkt. 299) (the "September 16th D&O"), as well as the March 16th R&R and the September 3rd R&R, familiarity with all of which is assumed for purposes of this Decision and Order.

I. The March 16th R&R

"The phrase ‘aseptically disinfecting’ appears in several claims of the patents in suit." (March 16th R&R at 1). Judge McCarthy held a claim construction hearing as to the construction of "aseptically disinfecting" pursuant to Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. , 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996), on January 31, 2018. (Id. at 1-2). This claim term has been the subject of extensive litigation, the details of which are discussed at length in the September 16th D&O. (See September 16th D&O at 5-12). After entry of the September 16th D&O, Judge McCarthy ordered additional submissions regarding this claim term. On February 24, 2020, Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation regarding the construction of "aseptically disinfecting." (Oystar Action, Dkt. 369; GEA Action, Dkt. 595; Nestlé Action, Dkt. 427; Jasper Action, Dkt. 313). That Report and Recommendation was superseded by the March 16th R&R. (March 16th R&R at 1). In the March 16th R&R, Judge McCarthy recommends that "aseptically disinfecting" be construed to require the use of a sterilant that had been approved by the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") as of February 2, 1999. (Id. at 6).

The phrase "at a rate greater than 100 bottles per minute" also appears in several claims of the patents in suit. (Id. (citing claims 1 and 18-20 of United States Patent No. 6,945,013 (the "’013 Patent") and claims 19 and 40 of United States Patent No. 6,536,188 (the "’188 Patent") )). Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation regarding construction of this phrase on February 11, 2020. (Oystar Action, Dkt. 368; GEA Action, Dkt. 594; Nestlé Action, Dkt. 425; Jasper Action, Dkt. 312). That Report and Recommendation was superseded by the March 16th R&R. (March 16th R&R at 1). In the March 16th R&R, Judge McCarthy recommends that "at a rate greater than 100 bottles per minute" be construed to mean "at a rate ranging from greater than 100 bottles per minute to an infinite (that is, indefinite) number of bottles per minute." (Id. at 11).

Plaintiff filed objections to the March 16th R&R on April 24, 2020. (Oystar Action, Dkt. 375; GEA Action, Dkt. 601; Nestlé Action, Dkt. 434; Jasper Action, Dkt. 319). Jasper, Nestlé, and defendants GEA Process Engineering, Inc. and GEA Procomac S.p.A. (collectively "GEA") filed responses to Plaintiff's objections on May 22, 2020. (Oystar Action, Dkt. 378; Oystar Action, Dkt. 379; GEA Action, Dkt. 604; GEA Action, Dkt. 605; GEA Action, Dkt. 606; Nestlé Action, Dkt. 437; Nestlé Action, Dkt. 438; Jasper Action, Dkt. 322; Jasper Action, Dkt. 323). Plaintiff filed a combined reply on June 11, 2020. (Oystar Action, Dkt. 380; GEA Action, Dkt. 608; Nestlé Action, Dkt. 440; Jasper Action, Dkt. 325). Jasper, GEA, and Nestlé filed sur-replies on June 18, 2020. (Oystar Action, Dkt. 383; Oystar Action, Dkt. 384; Oystar Action, Dkt. 385; GEA Action, Dkt. 611; GEA Action, Dkt. 612; GEA Action, Dkt. 613; Nestlé Action, Dkt. 443; Nestlé Action, Dkt. 444; Nestlé Action, Dkt. 445; Jasper Action, Dkt. 328; Jasper Action, Dkt. 329; Jasper Action, Dkt. 330).

II. The September 3rd R&R

Judge McCarthy held a Markman hearing as to the ’013 Patent on June 16, 2020. (September 3rd R&R at 1). The September 3rd R&R recommends construction of the following phrases: "a feedback control system for maintaining aseptic bottling conditions," found in claim 9 of the ’013 Patent ; "disinfecting the bottles ... with hot hydrogen peroxide spray," found in claim 20 of the ’013 Patent ; and "a residual level of hydrogen peroxide ... less than 0.5 PPM," found in claim 20 of the ’013 Patent. (Id. ). Judge McCarthy recommends that: (1) "a feedback control system for maintaining aseptic bottling conditions" be considered a means-plus-function limitation and determined to lack corresponding structure, thus rendering claim 9 of the ’013 Patent indefinite; (2) "disinfecting the bottles ... with hot hydrogen peroxide spray" be construed to mean that "the hydrogen peroxide must be heated to its vaporization phase immediately before being applied to the container"; and (3) "a residual level of hydrogen peroxide ... less than 0.5 PPM" be construed to mean "the level determined in accordance with 21 C.F.R. § 178.1005(d)." (Id. at 1-10).

Plaintiff and Jasper filed objections to the September 3rd R&R on October 8, 2020. (Oystar Action, Dkt. 398; Oystar Action, Dkt. 399; GEA Action, Dkt. 623; Nestlé Action, Dkt. 459; Jasper Action, Dkt. 342; Jasper Action, Dkt. 343). On November 6, 2020, Plaintiff, Jasper, and defendant Kan-Pak, LLC ("Kan-Pak") filed responses. (Oystar Action, Dkt. 402; Oystar Action, Dkt. 403; Oystar Action, Dkt. 404; GEA Action, Dkt. 624; Nestlé Action, Dkt. 460; Jasper Action, Dkt. 347; Jasper Action, Dkt. 348). Plaintiff filed a reply to Kan-Pak's response on November 23, 2020. (Oystar Action, Dkt. 406).

III. Nestlé’s Motion to Strike

On September 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed a "Notice of Supplemental Authority and Concurrent Proceeding" with respect to the March 16th R&R. (Oystar Action, Dkt. 392; GEA Action, Dkt. 617; Nestlé Action, Dkt. 450; Jasper Action, Dkt. 336) ("Plaintiff's Notice"). Plaintiff's Notice advised the Court of the Federal Circuit's decision...