DCT
1:23-cv-01340
Deerpoint Group Inc v. GAR Bennett LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Deerpoint Group, Inc. (Illinois)
- Defendant: GAR Bennett LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP; McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth LLP
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01340, E.D. Cal., 09/08/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of California because the events giving rise to the claims, including acts of infringement, occurred in the District, and the Defendant has a regular and established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s agricultural fertigation systems infringe two patents related to automated apparatus and methods for injecting fertilizers and nutrients into irrigation systems.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns automated agricultural systems that precisely blend and deliver customized nutrient formulas into micro-irrigation lines, aiming to improve crop yields and efficiency while avoiding issues like clogged lines common with manual methods.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant hired a former executive from a company, Agrigenix, that Plaintiff had previously sued for trade secret misappropriation concerning similar technology. Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with notice of the patents-in-suit and the alleged infringement beginning in September 2021, more than a year before filing the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-02-09 | Priority Date for ’474 and ’868 Patents |
| 2019-04-30 | U.S. Patent No. 10,271,474 Issued |
| 2020-01-01 | GAR Bennett formed from merger |
| 2020-05-12 | U.S. Patent No. 10,645,868 Issued |
| 2021-04-01 | GAR allegedly hires Sean Mahoney |
| 2021-05-24 | GAR allegedly informed of litigation against Mahoney/Agrigenix |
| 2021-08-01 | GAR allegedly purchases "Grow Green Machine" from Agrigenix |
| 2021-09-30 | GAR allegedly first notified of ’474 and ’868 Patents |
| 2023-02-19 | Accused GAR fertigation system photographed in Tracy, CA |
| 2023-03-01 | Additional images of accused GAR system obtained in San Joaquin Co. |
| 2023-09-08 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,271,474 - "APPARATUS FOR AUTOMATED FERTILIZATION AND/OR IRRIGATION, AND METHODS OF MAKING AND USING THE SAME"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10271474, issued April 30, 2019.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional agricultural fertigation systems as reliant on manual processes for recording information, adjusting pump settings, and managing pH levels. This manual approach is described as leading to inefficiencies, incorrect nutrient delivery, delays in identifying equipment problems, and potential crop or equipment damage. (’474 Patent, col. 1:24-30; col. 2:45-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an automated apparatus that centralizes control of fertigation. It consists of a container holding multiple pumps, each designated for a unique fertilizer or nutrient. A programmable controller connects to these pumps and communicates wirelessly with a remote computer. This allows a user to remotely set irrigation schedules and nutrient targets, with the on-site controller automatically adjusting the pumps to deliver precise amounts of each component and transmitting performance data back for monitoring. (’474 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:40-54; FIG. 3).
- Technical Importance: By automating the injection and monitoring of agricultural nutrients, the invention seeks to provide a more efficient, economical, and precise alternative to manual systems, addressing the challenges of rising labor costs and the need for optimized crop performance. (’474 Patent, col. 1:15-23).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (apparatus), 13 (method of fertilizing), and 19 (method of making). (Compl. ¶41).
- Independent Claim 1 recites an apparatus comprising:
- a container;
- a plurality of pumps within the container, each configured to provide a unique fertilizer, nutrient, or micronutrient;
- a controller operably connected to the pumps and configured to: (i) receive an irrigation schedule and performance instruction from a remote computer, (ii) transmit performance information to the remote computer, and (iii) control pump settings to deliver a predetermined amount of nutrients;
- an irrigation line that receives the output from the pumps; and
- the container is sealed, locked, or configured as a substantially waterproof housing.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶41).
U.S. Patent No. 10,645,868 - "APPARATUS FOR AUTOMATED FERTILIZATION AND/OR IRRIGATION, AND METHODS OF MAKING AND USING THE SAME"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10645868, issued May 12, 2020.
- Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the application that resulted in the ’474 patent, the ’868 patent addresses the same technical problem of inefficient manual fertigation systems. (’868 Patent, col. 1:26-36). The proposed solution is a functionally identical automated apparatus that uses a remote-capable controller to manage multiple on-site pumps for precise nutrient injection. The asserted claims of the ’868 patent contain slightly different language, such as specifying that each pump provides "at least one of a unique fertilizer, nutrient, micronutrient or any combination thereof," which may be argued to be broader than the corresponding language in the ’474 patent. (’868 Patent, col. 31:42-45).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 (apparatus), 13 (method), and 19 (method of making) are asserted. (Compl. ¶67).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the same GAR fertigation system of infringing the ’868 patent based on the same alleged functionality. (Compl. ¶¶68-72).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused product is the "GAR fertigation system," which the complaint alleges is referred to internally at GAR as the "HYE-V" system. (Compl. ¶¶25, 27).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused instrumentality is an on-site fertigation system, housed in a cabinet or "box," that customers license or rent from GAR. (Compl. ¶¶26, 28). The system is alleged to use multiple pumps to blend and inject fertilizers and other nutrients into a grower's micro-irrigation system. (Compl. ¶¶48-49). The complaint alleges the system contains control and communication components from a third party, WiseConn, which enable remote scheduling, control, and monitoring via a cloud-based platform. (Compl. ¶¶34, 50). A photograph provided in the complaint shows the interior of the accused system's enclosure, depicting multiple pumps and electronic controllers. (Compl. ¶29, p. 8).
- The complaint alleges that GAR markets its system as a direct competitor to and replacement for Deerpoint's own "White Box" system and that the accused system is "substantially similar if not identical" in function. (Compl. ¶27).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
10,271,474 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a container | The accused system is housed in an enclosure, which GAR allegedly markets as "pumps in a box." | ¶47 | col. 3:44-44 |
| a plurality of pumps in the container, wherein each of the plurality of pumps is configured to provide a unique fertilizer, nutrient or micronutrient to irrigation water | The accused system contains multiple pumps. Based on photos showing hoses from separate external tanks, the complaint alleges each pump is configured to provide a unique component to avoid cross-contamination. | ¶¶48-49 | col. 3:46-49 |
| a controller operably connected to each of the plurality of pumps, wherein the controller is configured to (i) receive from a remote computer an irrigation schedule... (ii) transmit... performance information, and (iii) control settings of each of the plurality of pumps... | The system allegedly uses WiseConn DropControl components, including a "fertigation controlling node." The complaint cites WiseConn's documentation to allege these components can schedule irrigations, transmit performance data, and control pumps, thereby meeting the three functional requirements. | ¶50 | col. 4:58-62 |
| an irrigation line into which the plurality of pumps provide the fertilizer(s), nutrient(s) or micronutrient(s) into the irrigation water | Photographs allegedly show hoses running from the GAR system's enclosure and connecting to a main irrigation line at the installation site. | ¶51 | col. 5:44-49 |
| wherein the container is sealed, locked, or configured to provide a substantially waterproof housing for the plurality of pumps and the controller | The complaint alleges the container is sealed or locked to protect internal components from weather and theft, and provides photographs of the enclosed system. | ¶52 | col. 3:54-58 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question is whether the "controller" element is met by the accused system, which allegedly uses third-party WiseConn hardware and cloud software. The dispute may focus on whether this distributed architecture performs the specific, integrated three-part function (receive, transmit, control) described in the claim and if the evidence, which relies heavily on WiseConn marketing materials, is sufficient to show this functionality in the accused GAR system itself.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges on "information, belief, and rational inference" that each pump is configured for a "unique" fertilizer based on the system's physical layout. A point of contention may be whether direct evidence exists to prove this one-to-one pump-to-unique-nutrient configuration, as required by the claim, or if multiple pumps can handle non-unique components.
10,645,868 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a container | The accused system is housed in an enclosure, which GAR allegedly markets as "pumps in a box." | ¶73 | col. 4:63-63 |
| a plurality of pumps... configured to provide at least one of a unique fertilizer, nutrient, micronutrient or any combination thereof to irrigation water | The system contains multiple pumps. The complaint alleges, based on observation of hoses from separate tanks and the system's purpose, that each pump provides a unique component or combination. | ¶75 | col. 31:42-45 |
| a controller operably connected to... the pumps, wherein the controller is configured to (i) receive from a remote computer an irrigation schedule... (ii) transmit... performance information, and (iii) control... pumps | The system allegedly uses WiseConn DropControl components. The complaint again cites WiseConn's public documentation to allege these components are used to schedule irrigations, transmit performance data, and control pumps. A screenshot from WiseConn's website shows a software interface for this purpose. (Compl. ¶82, p. 28) | ¶76 | col. 31:48-56 |
| an irrigation line into which the plurality of pumps provide the [nutrients] into the irrigation water | Photographs allegedly show hoses from the GAR system's enclosure connecting to a main irrigation line. | ¶77 | col. 25:16-18 |
Identified Points of Contention
- The points of contention for the ’868 patent are substantially the same as for the ’474 patent, as the infringement allegations rely on the same accused product and the same body of evidence. The core of the dispute will likely remain focused on the evidentiary basis for the controller's specific functionality and the "unique" configuration of the pumps.
- The slightly different claim language in the ’868 patent—"at least one of a unique fertilizer... or any combination thereof"—may provide the plaintiff a slightly broader scope, but it does not alter the fundamental evidentiary challenges identified.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "controller"
- Context and Importance: The infringement case hinges entirely on whether the accused system's combination of on-site hardware and third-party software meets the functional definition of the "controller" recited in the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's allegations depend on mapping functions described in WiseConn's general marketing materials onto the specific GAR product.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the control system can be distributed, stating that a "smartphone, laptop, tablet or other computer" can be used to change settings, implying that the "controller" is not necessarily a single, monolithic on-site device. (’474 Patent, col. 14:50-54).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's primary embodiment and figures depict a specific, on-site "programmable logic controller (PLC)" (e.g., item 315 in FIG. 3) as the core of the apparatus, which could support an argument that the term requires a more integrated, self-contained unit rather than a system reliant on external cloud services. (’474 Patent, col. 11:25-26).
The Term: "unique fertilizer, nutrient or micronutrient"
- Context and Importance: The claims require that "each of the plurality of pumps" be configured to provide a "unique" component. The complaint's evidence for this is inferential. The definition of "unique" will be critical to determining if this limitation is met.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's stated purpose is to allow for precise, automated blending from different sources to create custom formulas and avoid the problems of conventional systems. This purpose suggests "unique" should be interpreted simply as "different from the others" to enable this core function. (’474 Patent, col. 4:5-14).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that "unique" implies a higher standard than merely "different," questioning whether, for example, two pumps delivering different concentrations of the same base chemical would each be providing a "unique" nutrient. The specification discusses providing a "first," "second," and "third" fertilizer, reinforcing the idea of distinct chemical sources. (’474 Patent, col. 4:5-14).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges induced infringement by asserting that GAR provides the accused systems to its customers and enables or instructs them to operate the systems in an infringing manner. It also alleges contributory infringement, claiming the system is not a staple article of commerce and is especially adapted for infringing use. (Compl. ¶¶45, 71, 86).
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint cites a series of communications, beginning with a letter dated September 30, 2021, that allegedly provided GAR with actual notice of the patents-in-suit. The complaint also alleges GAR had knowledge through its hiring of an individual previously involved in litigation with Deerpoint over related technology. (Compl. ¶¶63, 88).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: Can Plaintiff produce direct evidence, beyond third-party documentation and allegations based on "information and belief," that the accused GAR system's controller, which allegedly incorporates WiseConn components, actually performs the specific three-part "receive, transmit, and control" functions recited in the asserted claims?
- A central issue of claim construction and fact will be the definitional scope of "unique": Does the term "unique fertilizer, nutrient or micronutrient" simply mean that each pump delivers a chemically different substance, or does it impose a higher standard? The resolution will determine whether Plaintiff's inferential evidence, based on the system's physical design, is sufficient to prove infringement of this limitation.
- Given the detailed allegations of pre-suit notice dating back to September 2021, a critical question for damages will be one of culpability: Did GAR's continued activities after receiving notice of the patents constitute willful infringement, potentially exposing it to a finding of egregious conduct and enhanced damages?