Vineyard Investigations v. E & J Gallo Winery

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Vineyard Investigations (California)
  • Defendant: E. & J. Gallo Winery (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bunsow De Mory LLP
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01482, E.D. Cal., 10/22/2021
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of California because Defendant has a permanent and continuous presence, maintains regular and established places of business, and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s variable rate irrigation and crop management systems infringe patents related to the use of in-field sensors and external data to automate the precise application of water and other materials in vineyards.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue is in the field of precision agriculture, which aims to optimize crop yield and quality while minimizing resource consumption through data-driven management practices.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff repeatedly offered to license the technology to Defendant beginning in 2010, but Defendant declined and subsequently built and used the accused infringing systems. The patentability of the asserted claims of the '834 and '810 patents was confirmed in ex parte reexamination proceedings subsequent to their original issuance.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-05-31	Priority Date for Asserted Patents ('834, '810, '881)
2005-09-20	U.S. Patent No. 6,947,810 Issued
2010-04-01	Complaint alleges Gallo's knowledge of patents began "at least" in April 2010
2010-05-18	Inventor Dr. Skinner allegedly contacted Gallo regarding the '810 Patent
2012-01-01	Alleged start of Gallo's use of infringing VRI system (with IBM)
2013-01-01	Alleged start of Gallo's installation of infringing VRI system at Central Valley vineyard
2013-09-10	U.S. Patent No. 8,528,834 Issued
2016-04-08	Dr. Skinner allegedly contacted Gallo executive regarding the patents
2017-05-10	Dr. Skinner allegedly observed infringing systems at Gallo vineyards
2020-05-12	U.S. Patent No. 10,645,881 Issued
2021-10-22	First Amended Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,528,834 - Plant Growing System Using External Data and Having Sensors Associated With Plants

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional irrigation systems as being inefficient, relying on simplistic timers or manual control that cannot account for variability in soil and plant conditions across a vineyard, leading to potential errors and suboptimal crop quality. ('834 Patent, col. 1:29-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "smart" automated system that integrates data from two distinct sources: local, in-field sensors near the plants and "external data" from remote sources like weather stations, satellites, or agricultural models. A central control system processes this combined information to precisely control emitters that dispense water, fertilizers, or other chemicals to specific plants or areas, tailoring the application to their actual needs. ('834 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:9-15; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This technology represented a move towards highly granular, automated crop management, enabling growers to improve yields and fruit quality while conserving resources like water and reducing labor costs. ('834 Patent, col. 2:13-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 15. (Compl. ¶71).
• Independent Claim 1 recites an apparatus comprising:
  • A central controller responsive to external data for controlling material dispensing from emitters.
  • One or more sensors in proximity to the vegetation, with signals transmitted to the central control system to control material conveyance.
• Independent Claim 15 recites a method comprising:
  • Obtaining external data for controlling material dispensing.
  • Using a controller to receive signals from at least one sensor.
  • Using the controller to control material dispensing via emitters in response to the external data.

U.S. Patent No. 6,947,810 - System for Automated Monitoring and Maintenance of Crops Including Sensors and Emitters Associated with Plants

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the shortcomings of prior art agricultural practices, noting that applying fungicides, insecticides, and water often relies on rudimentary methods that are labor-intensive, imprecise, and fail to account for localized variability within a crop field. ('810 Patent, col. 2:1-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system for targeted crop care that includes a plurality of sensors and emitters positioned in proximity to plants. A control system, which can be centralized or distributed, receives signals from the sensors and, in response, directs the emitters to dispense materials like water or chemicals only to the specific plants or plant areas that require them. ('810 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:52-67).
• Technical Importance: The system enabled a more precise and efficient application of crop inputs, promising to reduce waste, lower costs, and improve the accuracy of crop treatments compared to broad, non-targeted application methods. ('810 Patent, col. 6:30-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 2 and 20. (Compl. ¶94).
• Independent Claim 2 recites a system comprising:
  • A plurality of sensors, each associated with and in fixed proximity to one of the plants.
  • A control system coupled to the sensors to receive signals.
  • Emitters for dispensing material, each associated with and in fixed proximity to one of the plants.
  • A control system for controlling emission in response to a signal from a particular plant's associated sensor.
• Independent Claim 20 recites a method comprising:
  • Associating sensors and emitters with each of a plurality of plants.
  • Using a control system to receive signals from sensors associated with a given plant.
  • Using the control system to control emission of material to the given plant via its associated emitters.

U.S. Patent No. 10,645,881 - Plant Growing System Using External Data

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for precision irrigation that uses external data, such as from satellites or other remote sources, to control the application of materials to defined "plant areas." (Compl. ¶35). The external data is based at least in part on a model that includes "potential data," such as potential evapotranspiration, to facilitate more accurate and efficient irrigation control. ('881 Patent, col. 14:14-26; Compl. ¶35).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 10. (Compl. ¶116).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Gallo's irrigation systems that manage and control water applications in response to remotely sensed external data (e.g., from satellites) and models. (Compl. ¶116).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Defendant’s Variable Rate Irrigation (“VRI”) systems, conventional drip irrigation systems that use external data for control, and a system known as Vineyard Data Assimilation (“VIDA”), which are installed and used in Defendant’s vineyards across California. (Compl. ¶27, ¶58, ¶64).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused systems are alleged to divide vineyards into distinct management zones (e.g., 15x15m or 30x30m grids) for targeted irrigation. (Compl. ¶50, ¶73). They allegedly use a combination of in-field sensors (measuring, e.g., soil moisture and canopy temperature) and external data (e.g., Landsat satellite imagery, weather data) as inputs for evapotranspiration-based models. (Compl. ¶53, ¶63). A computer network with a central master controller then allegedly processes this "hyper-localized information" to generate and execute differential irrigation schedules for each zone. (Compl. ¶52, ¶83, ¶100). The complaint includes a slide from a presentation by IBM describing the accused system, which shows a 10-acre vineyard divided into 140 independent irrigation zones matched to Landsat cell size, with control electronics and a central control area. (Compl. p.25).
• The complaint alleges that Defendant publicly promotes these systems as providing significant commercial benefits, including substantial increases in crop yield and quality alongside reductions in water consumption. (Compl. ¶51, ¶55, ¶56).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’834 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a central controller, wherein the central controller is responsive to external data for controlling material dispensing from one or more emitters in fixed proximity to the vegetation;	The accused systems use a "central computer" or "computer network with a single master" that is responsive to external data such as "Landsat (visible & infrared) data" and evapotranspiration models to control irrigation schedules for each zone.	¶77	col. 5:1-9
one or more sensors in fixed proximity to the vegetation, wherein each sensor is associated with one or more particular plant in the vegetation, wherein signals from the sensors are transmitted to a central control system and are used to control conveyance of the material to the vegetation.	The accused systems employ in-field sensor arrays that "wirelessly and continuously communicate environmental conditions and vine stress to a central computer," and this information is automatically processed to provide watering instructions. A photograph in the complaint depicts an accused control box with valves for varying irrigation.	¶79, ¶81, p.19	col. 4:50-54

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the "external data" used by the accused system, which includes outputs from complex models like evapotranspiration (ET) models, falls within the scope of the term "external data" as used in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires the controller to be "responsive to external data for controlling" dispensing. An issue may arise as to the degree of responsiveness required and whether the accused system's use of external data for periodic model updates, as opposed to direct real-time control, satisfies this limitation.

’810 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 2)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a plurality of sensors, wherein each sensor is associated with, and in fixed proximity to, one of the plants;	The accused systems allegedly use "a plurality of sensors," including sensor arrays measuring temperature and soil water content "under the vine canopy," positioned in proximity to the grapevines.	¶98, ¶99	col. 3:24-26
a control system coupled to one or more of the sensors for receiving a signal from them;	Gallo's system is alleged to include a "central computer, an antenna and a wireless modem for remote access and control," which receives signals from the in-field sensors.	¶100	col. 5:2-4
emitters for emitting the material to a plant, wherein each emitter is associated with, and in fixed proximity to, one of the plants; and	The accused systems are alleged to use conduits with "drip emitters, two per vine," which are fixed in proximity to the grapevines under the canopy. A photograph shows an accused "multi-channel under-canopy conduit" in use.	¶103, p.17	col. 3:27-31
a control system for controlling emission of the material to a particular plant via the particular plant's associated emitter in response to a signal from the particular plant's associated sensor.	The accused system's controller allegedly uses the "hyper-localized information" from the sensors, which is "automatically processed" to provide "recommended watering instructions," thereby controlling the emitters.	¶105	col. 5:35-41

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The claim requires control "in response to a signal from the particular plant's associated sensor." A key question will be whether Gallo's system, which allegedly aggregates data from numerous sensors and uses a model to determine irrigation for a "zone," meets this "particular plant" limitation or if the control is too generalized.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence will establish the causal link between a signal from a specific sensor and the control of its associated emitter? The defense may argue that the control logic is holistic and model-driven, rather than being directly responsive to individual sensor inputs as the claim language may require.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "external data" ('834 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the '834 patent's infringement theory, as the core allegation is that Gallo uses remote satellite and model data to control irrigation. The definition will determine whether modeled or processed information, such as evapotranspiration (ET) estimates, qualifies as "external data."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-limiting list of examples, including "weather data, crop growth models, growing degree days, ET, and ETc (evapotranspiration coefficients)," which explicitly includes the output of models. ('834 Patent, col. 5:15-19).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that the context implies data that is more directly measured from a remote "station" or "sensor," as listed in the same passage, and that complex, multi-input model outputs are distinct from this concept. ('834 Patent, col. 5:20-22).

• The Term: "in response to a signal from the particular plant's associated sensor" ('810 Patent, Claim 2)

• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require a direct causal relationship between a specific sensor and its corresponding emitter. The infringement case depends on whether Gallo's system, which aggregates data from many sensors and applies it to zones, can be said to operate in this manner.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discloses that the control system can be "centralized" and that sensor data can be used in "sophisticated analysis," which could support an interpretation where the "response" can be indirect and part of a larger, model-based calculation. ('810 Patent, col. 5:25-41).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The repeated use of "particular plant" and "associated emitter" could be argued to require a one-to-one or tightly-coupled control loop, which might not be present in a system that makes decisions for a large zone based on aggregated data.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Gallo induces and contributes to the infringement of its subsidiary growers and wineries by providing them with components, instructions, and expertise to build and operate the accused irrigation systems. (Compl. ¶87-89, ¶109-111).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported pre-suit knowledge of the Asserted Patents. The complaint details a history of communications beginning in 2010, where Plaintiff allegedly notified Gallo of the patent portfolio and offered a license, which Gallo declined before allegedly beginning its infringing activities around 2012. (Compl. ¶41, ¶42, ¶91, ¶113, ¶136).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of causal scope: Does Gallo’s complex, model-driven irrigation system, which aggregates data from numerous in-field sensors and external sources to make decisions for entire zones, satisfy the claim requirement of controlling an emitter “in response to a signal from the particular plant’s associated sensor”?
• A second central question will be definitional interpretation: Can the term "external data" be construed broadly to include the outputs of sophisticated predictive models (e.g., satellite-based evapotranspiration models), as the complaint alleges, or will it be confined to more direct, raw measurements from remote sensors?
• A key evidentiary factor will be the weight of Defendant's own documents. The complaint relies heavily on Gallo's own academic papers, presentations, and sustainability reports that describe the accused systems' functionality in detail, potentially shifting the dispute from what the system does to the legal question of whether that functionality reads on the claims as construed by the court.