DCT
8:25-cv-02516
Biolargo Inc v. Ikigai Marketing Works LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Biolargo Inc., Biolargo Life Technologies Inc., and Onm Environmental, Inc. (Delaware & California)
- Defendant: POOPH, INC., and Ikigai Marketing Works, LLC (Nevada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Plager Schack LLP; Kulik Gottesman Siegel & Ware LLP
- Case Identification: 8:25-cv-02516, C.D. Cal., 11/11/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have committed acts of patent infringement within the judicial district, including selling infringing products to consumers and retailers.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s pet odor control products infringe patents related to iodine-based chemical compositions, following the breakdown of a strategic partnership and the revocation of a license agreement between the parties.
- Technical Context: The technology involves chemical formulations that generate molecular iodine when activated by moisture, which then oxidizes and eliminates odor-causing compounds in the consumer pet care market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint details a prior business relationship initiated in 2021, which included an exclusive license for Defendant to use Plaintiff’s patented technology for "pet-odor-addressing household products." Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached payment obligations, leading Plaintiff to revoke the license on September 24, 2025. The infringement allegations are predicated on Defendant’s continued sale of products containing the licensed technology post-revocation, as well as the marketing of those products for uses allegedly outside the scope of the original license.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-09-07 | Earliest Priority Date for '610 and '601 Patents |
| 2006-12-08 | Earliest Priority Date for '158 Patent |
| 2008-01-18 | Earliest Priority Date for '057 Patent |
| 2011-01-11 | U.S. Patent No. 7,867,510 Issued |
| 2011-09-20 | U.S. Patent No. 7,943,158 Issued |
| 2013-11-05 | U.S. Patent No. 8,574,610 Issued |
| 2014-02-04 | U.S. Patent No. 8,642,057 Issued |
| 2016-08-16 | U.S. Patent No. 9,414,601 Issued |
| 2021-02-08 | Mutual Nondisclosure Agreement Executed |
| 2021-03-22 | Strategic Partnership Term Sheet Signed |
| 2021-05-18 | Memorandum of Understanding and License Agreement Executed |
| 2021-07-09 | Preferred Master Manufacturing Agreement (PMMA) Executed |
| 2021-08-16 | First Amendment to License Agreement Executed |
| 2022-01-09 | Defendant Ikigai Assigns Rights to Defendant Pooph |
| 2025-01-31 | Defendant Allegedly Fails Royalty Payment for Q4 2024 |
| 2025-04-16 | Plaintiff Delivers Formal Notice of Breach |
| 2025-06-06 | PMMA Amendment Executed to Address Past Due Amounts |
| 2025-08-08 | Defendant Makes Final Installment Payment Under PMMA Amendment |
| 2025-09-19 | Defendant Discloses "New Formula" and Terminates PMMA |
| 2025-09-24 | Plaintiff Delivers License Revocation Notice to Defendant |
| 2025-11-11 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,642,057 - "Antimicrobial and Antiodor Solutions and Delivery Systems," Issued February 4, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background notes that while iodine solutions have long been used as disinfectants, there is a desire for further advances in their performance and stability (Compl., Ex. 4, p. 2; ’057 Patent, col. 1:17-19).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a stable, liquid antimicrobial and antiodor solution. It comprises a carrier liquid (like water or alcohol), molecular iodine (I₂), copper sulfate (CuSO₄), and sufficient acid (such as a sulfamic acid compound) to maintain an acidic pH of less than 6.5, which is stabilized with a buffering agent (’057 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:24-31). This specific chemical combination provides a ready-to-use formulation for delivering the oxidative power of iodine.
- Technical Importance: The formulation provides a stable, liquid delivery system for iodine-based disinfection and odor control, suitable for various applications (’057 Patent, col. 1:12-16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶80).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A liquid antimicrobial solution comprising: at least 80% of total weight of a carrier liquid comprising water, alcohol or a mixture of water and alcohol;
- at least 0.001% by weight of the solution of I₂;
- and sufficient acid in the solution to provide a pH of less than 6.5,
- and the solution further comprising IK [Potassium Iodide],
- and at least 0.005% by weight of CuSO₄,
- a sulfamic acid compound,
- and a buffering agent.
U.S. Patent No. 8,574,610 - "Material Having Antimicrobial Activity When Wet," Issued November 5, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for absorbent materials, such as those used in diapers or for animal habitats, to control microbial growth and odor that occurs when these materials become wet (Compl., Ex. 3, p. 4; ’610 Patent, col. 1:35-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "flowable particle blend" composed of at least three types of separate, distinct particles. The blend includes a granular water-absorbent carrier (e.g., a superabsorbent polymer) mixed with a reactive composition. This reactive composition itself consists of at least two separate particle types (e.g., one with copper sulfate, another with potassium iodide) that are stable when dry but react in the presence of water to produce molecular iodine (’610 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:46-60).
- Technical Importance: This approach creates a stable, dry-powder product that can be incorporated into absorbent materials and activates its antimicrobial and antiodor properties only when wetted, providing on-demand performance (’610 Patent, col. 2:38-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶81).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A flowable particle blend of at least three separate and distinct particles for application to an animal habitat, providing both absorbency and antimicrobial activity;
- The blend comprises a granular water absorbent solid carrier material (containing a superabsorbent polymer) and a reactive composition;
- The reactive composition consists essentially of at least two separate particles (a first with CuSO₄ reagent, a second with KI reagent) that react in water to produce molecular iodine;
- The particles are carried by a water absorbent solid carrier material such that adding water causes the reagents to combine and react;
- The particles are granular and provide a local iodine concentration of at least 10 parts per million when the material contains 5% aqueous liquid by weight.
U.S. Patent No. 9,414,601 - "Material having antimicrobial activity when wet," Issued August 16, 2016
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an article, such as a fabric wipe or pad, that provides antimicrobial and/or anti-odor activity when activated by water or alcohol. The article comprises a porous fabric material infused with at least two separate particulate solid reagents that react to produce molecular iodine. A central feature of the invention is a water-soluble or water-dispersible solid covering on at least one of the reagent particles, which physically separates the reagents to prevent premature reaction from ambient humidity (Compl., Ex. 5, p. 1; ’601 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶82).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Pooph Potty Pads" infringe this patent (Compl. ¶82).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are a line of pet odor control products sold under the "Pooph" brand, which are based on Plaintiff's "CupriDyne®" technology (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 41, 43). Specific products accused of infringing particular patents include:
- '057 Patent: Liquid spray products such as Pooph Pet Odor Eliminator, Pooph Laundry, and Pooph Skunkless Wonder (Compl. ¶¶ 75, 80).
- '610 Patent: The "Pooph Litterizer" and "Pooph Potty Pads" (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 81).
- '601 Patent: The "Pooph Potty Pads" (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 82).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are designed to eliminate pet odors through the chemical process of oxidation, using the allegedly patented iodine-based CupriDyne® technology (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges that the Pooph brand was a successful retail launch, generating approximately $45 million in revenue in 2023 and nearly $52 million in 2024 (Compl. ¶45). The products are sold through major online and brick-and-mortar retailers, including Amazon, Walmart, Target, and PetSmart (Compl. ¶46).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 8,642,057 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A liquid antimicrobial solution comprising: at least 80% of total weight of a carrier liquid comprising water, alcohol or a mixture of water and alcohol; | The complaint alleges that the accused liquid Pooph products (e.g., Pet Odor Eliminator, Laundry) are or contain the claimed solution. | ¶80 | col. 1:25-28 |
| at least 0.001% by weight of the solution of I₂; | The complaint alleges the accused liquid products meet this chemical composition limitation. | ¶80 | col. 1:29-30 |
| and sufficient acid in the solution to provide a pH of less than 6.5, | The complaint alleges the accused liquid products meet this pH limitation. | ¶80 | col. 1:30-31 |
| and the solution further comprising IK [Potassium Iodide] | The complaint alleges the accused liquid products contain this component. | ¶80 | col. 5:29-32 |
| and at least 0.005% by weight of CuSO₄, | The complaint alleges the accused liquid products meet this chemical composition limitation. | ¶80 | col. 2:01-04 |
| a sulfamic acid compound | The complaint alleges the accused liquid products contain this component. | ¶80 | col. 2:12-14 |
| and a buffering agent. | The complaint alleges the accused liquid products contain this component. | ¶80 | col. 2:49-51 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint alleges infringement in a conclusory manner without providing specific factual support, such as chemical analysis or test results of the accused products. A central point of contention may be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence demonstrating that the accused Pooph liquid formulas meet every quantitative and qualitative limitation of Claim 1, including the specific percentages of components, the presence of both a sulfamic acid compound and a distinct buffering agent, and the required pH level.
U.S. Patent No. 8,574,610 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A flowable particle blend of at least three separate and distinct particles for application to an environment that is a habitat for an animal... | The complaint alleges that the Pooph Litterizer and Pooph Potty Pads are or contain the claimed flowable particle blend. | ¶81 | col. 10:25-29 |
| a) a granular water absorbent solid carrier material carrier comprising superabsorbent polymer... | The complaint alleges the accused products contain this absorbent carrier material. | ¶81 | col. 10:29-32 |
| b) a reactive composition; the reactive composition consisting essentially of at least two separate particles as a first particle comprising CuSO₄ reagent and a second particle comprising KI reagent, | The complaint alleges the accused products contain this two-part reactive composition. | ¶81 | col. 10:33-36 |
| the first particle and the composition of the second particle reacting with each other in the presence of water to produce molecular iodine, | The complaint alleges the components of the accused products react as claimed when wetted. | ¶81 | col. 10:37-39 |
| each of the first particles and the second particles being carried by a water absorbent solid carrier material so that application of aqueous liquid...will cause the reagents...to be combined... | The complaint alleges the accused products are structured to facilitate the claimed reaction upon wetting. | ¶81 | col. 10:39-45 |
| the reactive composition providing a local concentration of at least 10 parts per million iodine in the aqueous liquid...when the granular composition has 5% by weight of aqueous liquid... | The complaint alleges the accused products produce the claimed concentration of iodine when wetted. | ¶81 | col. 10:47-53 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Structural Questions: A key question may be whether the accused products are in fact a "flowable particle blend of at least three separate and distinct particles." The defense could argue that the product is a composite material where the reagents are, for example, coated onto a single carrier particle type, rather than existing as a physical blend of three distinct particle types.
- Functional Questions: As with the ’057 patent, the infringement analysis will raise evidentiary questions regarding whether the accused products, when wetted as specified in the claim, actually produce a "local concentration of at least 10 parts per million iodine."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’057 Patent
- The Term: "a sulfamic acid compound and a buffering agent"
- Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires the presence of both components. The construction of these terms will be critical to determining if the accused solution, which must contain an acid to achieve a low pH, also contains a chemically distinct "buffering agent." Practitioners may focus on this term because the defense could argue that a single ingredient in its formulation performs both functions, or that the formulation lacks a component that meets the patent's definition of a "buffering agent" separate from the "sulfamic acid compound."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes that the solution "may then be buffered back to a pH of 5.8-7.0" (Compl., Ex. 4, p. 2; ’057 Patent, col. 2:7-8), which could suggest that the buffering agent is any substance capable of moderating the pH within a target range.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification lists preferred "buffering agents" as "inorganic cation buffering agents such as carbonates, bicarbonates, phosphates and other inorganic basic salts" (Compl., Ex. 4, p. 4; ’057 Patent, col. 5:8-10). This language, along with the claim's use of "and," suggests that the "sulfamic acid compound" and the "buffering agent" are structurally and functionally distinct classes of chemicals required by the claim.
For the ’610 Patent
- The Term: "flowable particle blend of at least three separate and distinct particles"
- Context and Importance: This language in the preamble of Claim 1 sets a fundamental structural requirement for the accused product. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused Pooph Litterizer and Potty Pads are constructed as a physical mixture of different particle types or as a more integrated composite. Practitioners may focus on whether "blend" implies a simple mixture and whether the components are truly "separate and distinct particles."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The detailed description discusses various ways to separate the reactants, including carrying them in different layers or as pellets in an anhydrous condition (Compl., Ex. 3, p. 6; ’610 Patent, col. 6:30-36), which might support a construction where the "blend" does not require a simple, random mixture of three particle types.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites "a granular water absorbent solid carrier" as component (a) and "at least two separate particles" as sub-components of component (b), the reactive composition. A literal reading suggests the product must contain at least three physically separate and distinct types of particles mixed together to form the "blend."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for induced or contributory infringement. However, the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendants from infringement "either directly or indirectly" (Compl. p. 31, ¶(A)(2)).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for both counts of infringement. The basis for willfulness is Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents, gained through the parties' prior licensing and strategic partnership agreements (Compl. ¶¶ 18-20, 84, 96). The complaint alleges that Defendant "knew, or it was so obvious that Ikigai should have known, that its actions constituted infringement" by continuing to sell products after the license was revoked and by selling products for uses outside the license's permitted Field of Use (Compl. ¶¶ 84, 96).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of contractual scope and validity: did the Defendant’s failure to pay royalties constitute a material breach sufficient to permit the Plaintiff's unilateral revocation of the license agreement? The answer will determine the viability of Count I, which is predicated on sales made "without a license." Similarly, the interpretation of the license's "Field of Use" limitation—specifically whether marketing for general household odors exceeds the scope of "pet-odor-addressing household products"—will be dispositive for Count II.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: assuming the contractual questions are resolved in the Plaintiff’s favor, can the Plaintiff produce sufficient technical evidence (e.g., reverse engineering, chemical analysis) to demonstrate that the accused Pooph products meet, on an element-by-element basis, the specific chemical composition, pH, and structural particle requirements recited in the asserted claims? The complaint's high-level allegations suggest that this factual proof will be a primary focus of discovery and expert testimony.