DCT
3:22-cv-08122
Houweling Intellectual Properties Inc v. Copperstate Farms LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Houweling Intellectual Properties, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Copperstate Farms, LLC (Arizona); Mountain High Greenhouse Construction, LLC (Arizona); ALPS, Inc. (Canada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dorsey & Whitney LLP; Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth LLP
- Case Identification: 3:22-cv-08122, D. Ariz., 05/09/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants Copperstate Farms and Mountain High Greenhouse Construction reside in the district, and all Defendants have allegedly committed acts of infringement and maintain a regular and established place of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that a commercial greenhouse, retrofitted by certain Defendants and operated by another, infringes two patents related to advanced greenhouse climate control systems.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns integrated systems for managing the internal environment of large-scale greenhouses by selectively using outside air or recirculating internal air for precise temperature and climate regulation.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the '617 Patent survived an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2017-00476), where claims 1-28 were maintained as valid and patentable after a challenge. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision was subsequently affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This history may be relevant to the presumption of validity for the asserted claims of the '617 Patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-06-29 | Priority Date ('617 & '668 Patents) |
| 2014-04-29 | Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 8,707,617) |
| 2019-11-14 | Defendant Mountain High issues proposal to retrofit Snowflake Greenhouse |
| 2020-05-22 | Defendant Mountain High issues follow-up proposal to retrofit Snowflake Greenhouse |
| 2022-03-31 | Date of notice letter from Plaintiff to Defendant Copperstate |
| 2022-08-16 | Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 11,412,668) |
| 2024-05-09 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,707,617 - Greenhouse and Forced Greenhouse Climate Control System and Method (Issued Apr. 29, 2014)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the general challenge of controlling environmental conditions like temperature, humidity, and CO2 levels within commercial greenhouses, which have distinct requirements compared to outdoor agriculture (U.S. Patent No. 8,707,617, col. 1:24-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a greenhouse with a dedicated climate control system housed in a "substantially enclosed end gable" that is adjacent to, but outside of, the main crop "growing section" ('617 Patent, col. 5:15-18). This system uses a series of vents and louvers to flexibly manage airflow. It can draw in cooler ambient air from outside, recirculate air already inside the greenhouse, or blend the two sources to precisely control the climate within the growing section ('617 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-5).
- Technical Importance: This architecture provides a cost-effective method for precise climate management, particularly in extreme climates, and can create positive pressure to help prevent pest intrusion ('617 Patent, col. 8:12-19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Independent Claim 1: A greenhouse comprising:
- a growing section;
- a climate control system in a substantially enclosed end gable adjacent to and outside the growing section, with one or more vents and louvers; and
- the climate control system is arranged to control the environment by flowing ambient air from outside, re-circulating air from the growing section, or a combination thereof.
- Independent Claim 17: A greenhouse comprising:
- a substantially enclosed growing section; and
- a substantially enclosed end gable adjacent to and outside the growing section with vents and louvers, where the end gable is arranged to:
- flow cool air into the growing section to reduce temperature;
- flow warm air into the growing section to increase temperature; and
- re-circulate air within the growing section when the temperature is at a desired level.
- The complaint asserts claims 1 and 17 and does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶25).
U.S. Patent No. 11,412,668 - Greenhouse and Forced Greenhouse Climate Control System and Method (Issued Aug. 16, 2022)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same general problem of greenhouse climate control as its parent, the '617 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,412,668, col. 1:24-40).
- The Patented Solution: As a continuation of the '617 patent's application, the '668 Patent describes a more specific architecture. Here, the climate control system is separated from the growing section by a "partition" that "runs the entire length of one of the sides" of the greenhouse structure ('668 Patent, col. 9:20-23). This configuration creates a long corridor that serves as the climate control hub, with air distributed into the growing section via a "plurality of tubes" arranged near the bottom ('668 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:38-46).
- Technical Importance: This full-length partition design allows for climate management along the entire side of a greenhouse, potentially enabling more uniform control and distribution in very large-scale facilities ('668 Patent, col. 9:42-51).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Independent Claim 1: A greenhouse comprising:
- a climate control system and a growing section;
- the system is separated from the growing section by a partition that is parallel to and runs the entire length of one side of the greenhouse structure;
- the system is arranged to control the environment by flowing ambient air and/or re-circulating air;
- the partition has a vent allowing air passage between the growing section and the climate control system; and
- a plurality of tubes at the bottom of the growing section distribute the air.
- Independent Claim 14: A greenhouse comprising:
- a climate control system and a growing section;
- the system is separated from the growing section by a partition that runs from the floor and the entire length of one of the outside walls;
- at least part of the climate control system is within the area formed by the greenhouse walls and the partition; and
- similar elements for airflow control and distribution via tubes as in claim 1.
- The complaint asserts claims 1 and 14 and does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶25).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is the "Snowflake Greenhouse," located at 650 N Industrial Way, Snowflake, AZ, which is owned and operated by Defendant Copperstate Farms (Compl. ¶17). The complaint alleges that Defendants Mountain High and ALPS constructed a "retrofit" of this greenhouse (Compl. ¶¶18, 21-22).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the Snowflake Greenhouse practices the patented inventions by including a "climate control section, comprising a configuration of vents, louvers and tubes allowing for the utilization of ambient air, recirculated air or a combination thereof" (Compl. ¶45, ¶55). The allegations track the language of the asserted claims but do not provide independent technical descriptions or diagrams of the accused greenhouse's specific design or operation (Compl. ¶¶27-30). The complaint does not provide detail regarding the market context of the Snowflake Greenhouse.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'617 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a growing section | The Snowflake Greenhouse comprises a growing section. | ¶27 | col. 3:7-8 |
| a climate control system comprising a substantially enclosed end gable adjacent to and outside said growing section | The Snowflake Greenhouse comprises a climate control system with a substantially enclosed end gable adjacent to and outside the growing section. | ¶27 | col. 5:15-18 |
| said end gable comprising one or more vents and one or more louvers selectively moveable to cooperate with said one or more vents to control air flow through said one or more vents | The end gable of the Snowflake Greenhouse comprises one or more vents and selectively moveable louvers to control airflow. | ¶27 | col. 6:14-17 |
| wherein said climate control system is arranged to control the environment within said growing section by flowing ambient air from outside the greenhouse into the climate control system and into said growing section, re-circulating air from said growing section back into the climate control system and into said growing section, and a combination thereof | The climate control system of the Snowflake Greenhouse is arranged to control the environment by flowing ambient air, re-circulating air, or a combination thereof. | ¶27 | col. 3:1-5 |
'668 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a greenhouse structure having outside walls and a floor, said greenhouse structure comprising a climate control system and a growing section | The Snowflake Greenhouse comprises a climate control system and a growing section. | ¶29 | col. 9:16-19 |
| wherein said climate control system is separated by a partition from said growing section, wherein said partition is parallel to and runs the entire length of one of the sides of said greenhouse structure | The climate control system is separated from the growing section by a partition that is parallel to and runs the entire length of one side of the greenhouse. | ¶29 | col. 9:20-23 |
| such that said climate control system is bordered only by said walls of said greenhouse structure and said partition | The climate control system is bordered only by the walls of the greenhouse structure and the partition. | ¶29 | col. 9:23-25 |
| said climate control system arranged to control the environment... by flowing ambient air from outside... and/or by re-circulating air from said growing section | The climate control system is arranged to control the environment by flowing ambient air from outside and/or by re-circulating air from the growing section. | ¶29 | col. 9:28-33 |
| wherein said partition comprises a partition vent to allow air to pass between said growing section and said climate control system | The partition comprises a partition vent to allow air to pass between the growing section and the climate control system. | ¶29 | col. 9:35-38 |
| whereby a plurality of tubes are in communication with said one or more vents to regulate the environment of said growing section | A plurality of tubes are in communication with one or more vents to regulate the environment of the growing section. | ¶29 | col. 9:38-41 |
| wherein said tubes are arranged at the bottom of said growing section to uniformly distribute air... from a location near the bottom of said growing section | The tubes are arranged at the bottom of the growing section to uniformly distribute air to a greenhouse crop from a location near the bottom of the growing section. | ¶29 | col. 9:41-46 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Structural Questions: The complaint's allegations rely on conclusory statements that the "Snowflake Greenhouse" contains the claimed structures. A primary point of contention will be factual: does the physical layout of the accused greenhouse retrofit meet the specific architectural requirements of a "substantially enclosed end gable adjacent to and outside" the growing area ('617 Patent) or a "partition" that "runs the entire length of one of the sides" of the structure ('668 Patent)? The absence of diagrams or detailed descriptions of the accused facility in the complaint leaves this as a central question for discovery.
- Functional Questions: Beyond the structure, a key question for the court will be whether the components of the accused system actually operate as claimed. For example, the court will need to determine if the accused vents and louvers are used to selectively flow ambient air, recirculated air, and a combination thereof to control the internal climate, as required by claim 1 of the '617 Patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "substantially enclosed end gable" (from '617 Patent, claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the primary structural housing for the climate control system in the '617 Patent. The infringement analysis for the '617 Patent will depend heavily on whether the accused retrofitted structure at the Snowflake Greenhouse can be characterized as an "end gable."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes it functionally as the area housing the climate control system, stating, "The majority of the climate control system 12 is housed within the gabled end 14" ('617 Patent, col. 5:16-18). This could support an interpretation covering any structure at the end of a greenhouse that performs this housing function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures, such as Fig. 1, depict a distinct, physically separate structure attached to the end of the main greenhouse. This may support a narrower construction requiring a specific type of A-frame or pitched-roof structure, as the term "gable" conventionally implies.
The Term: "partition... runs the entire length" (from '668 Patent, claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This limitation is a defining feature of the invention claimed in the '668 Patent, distinguishing it from a more general "end gable" system. Whether the accused greenhouse infringes the '668 Patent will likely hinge on the interpretation of "entire length." Practitioners may focus on this term because absolute words like "entire" are often litigated.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that "entire length" should be interpreted in the context of the invention to mean substantially the full operational length, allowing for minor gaps or interruptions for structural reasons without defeating the claim.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language "runs the entire length" suggests a continuous, unbroken separation from one end of the greenhouse side to the other ('668 Patent, col. 9:20-23). A defendant could argue that any significant break in the partition means it does not run the "entire length."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants Mountain High and ALPS induced infringement by "actively and knowingly aiding and abetting" Copperstate to use the infringing greenhouse (Compl. ¶36). The factual basis alleged is their role in specifying construction components for and building the retrofit of the Snowflake Greenhouse (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 22).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶38). Pre-suit knowledge is alleged against Defendant Copperstate based on a specific notice letter dated March 31, 2022 (Compl. ¶31). For Defendants Mountain High and ALPS, pre-suit knowledge is alleged based on their "previous involvement in construction of greenhouses covered by the '617 Patent" (Compl. ¶32).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Does the physical architecture of the retrofitted Snowflake Greenhouse meet the specific definitions laid out in the patents? The case may turn on whether the accused facility has a structure that can be defined as a "substantially enclosed end gable" ('617 Patent) or contains a "partition" that "runs the entire length" of a side ('668 Patent).
- A second central question will concern pre-suit knowledge and willfulness, particularly for Defendants Mountain High and ALPS. While the complaint alleges actual notice to Copperstate via a letter, the basis for the other Defendants' knowledge is an alleged "previous involvement" with patented systems. The evidence produced in discovery to substantiate this earlier knowledge will be critical in determining whether any infringement, if found, was willful.