DCT

1:25-at-00896

Bloom Fresh Intl Ltd v. Solorio

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00896, E.D. Cal., 10/02/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of California because the defendants are residents of the district and the actions giving rise to the claims, including the cultivation and sale of the accused grapevines, occurred within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are infringing a U.S. plant patent by asexually reproducing, cultivating, and selling a protected variety of grapevine and the grapes harvested therefrom.
  • Technical Context: The technology domain is viticulture and plant breeding, specifically the development of new table grape varieties with unique and commercially desirable characteristics such as color, taste, and texture.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any significant prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history relevant to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-06-05 U.S. Patent No. PP21,664 Priority Date (Application Filing)
2011-01-25 U.S. Patent No. PP21,664 Issues
2025-01-18 Alleged Lease Agreement for Accused Vineyard Executed
2025-08-20 Alleged Offer for Sale of Accused Grapes
2025-10-02 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. PP21,664 - “Grapevine ‘IFG 68-175’”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. PP21,664 (“’664 Patent”), “Grapevine ‘IFG 68-175’”, issued January 25, 2011.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent sought to develop a new grapevine variety with a superior combination of traits compared to existing commercial varieties. Specifically, it aimed for a variety that develops a "brighter, more desirable red color" and can do so without "extensive leaf removal or ethrel applications," thereby reducing growing costs for producers (’664 Patent, col. 2:10-12, col. 2:29-32).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims a new and distinct grapevine variety, designated ‘IFG 68-175’, which was created through a hand-pollinated cross of the ‘Redglobe’ and ‘Princess’ varieties (’664 Patent, col. 1:10-13). The resulting plant is characterized by producing "large bright red, crisp, uniform berries with high sugar content" that ripen in mid-season (’664 Patent, Abstract). The patent’s detailed description provides dozens of specific morphological and pomological characteristics that define the variety, from leaf shape to berry firmness (’664 Patent, col. 3:1-col. 5:15).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a table grape variety with high visual appeal and eating quality, combined with viticultural traits that can make cultivation more efficient and less costly than for other varieties (’664 Patent, col. 2:19-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of the patent’s single claim, Claim 1 (Compl. ¶51).
  • The claim protects:
    • A new and distinct variety of grapevine plant having the characteristics substantially as described and illustrated herein.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the grapevine plants located in a fifteen-acre vineyard on the "Porterville Field Property" in Porterville, California, as well as the grapes harvested from those plants (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 32). The complaint includes a map exhibit identifying the specific parcel of land where the accused vines are allegedly being grown (Compl. Ex. 1, p. 19).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the defendants have asexually reproduced, cultivated, and used the accused grapevine plants (Compl. ¶51(a)). It further alleges that the defendants have marketed, offered for sale, and sold grapes harvested from these plants under the name SWEET CELEBRATION®, which is the trademark Bloom Fresh uses for grapes of the patented variety (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 33, 51(d)). The complaint asserts that the only way for the defendants to possess these plants is through illegal propagation, as Bloom Fresh does not sell the plants to the public and only provides them to licensed growers under strict controls (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 27).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’664 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A new and distinct variety of grapevine plant having the characteristics substantially as described and illustrated herein. Defendants are alleged to be making, using, cultivating, and selling grapevine plants and grapes of the ‘IFG 68-175’ variety. The complaint alleges the identity of the accused plants is confirmed by: (1) Independent DNA testing (SSR marker analysis); (2) Visual inspection showing the plants are phenotypically identical to the patented variety, exhibiting traits such as grape size and uniformity; (3) Visible graft lines on the plants, indicating they were asexually reproduced; and (4) Defendants' own use of the associated "SWEET CELEBRATION®" trademark in a lease agreement, which the complaint offers as an admission of the variety's identity. ¶¶37-40, 51 col. 6:12-15; Fig. 1
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Identity: The central dispute will be factual: are the grapevine plants being cultivated by the defendants genetically the same as the patented 'IFG 68-175' variety? The complaint’s allegation of confirmatory DNA testing suggests a direct evidentiary basis for its claim, raising the question of the reliability and methodology of that testing (Compl. ¶39).
    • Asexual Reproduction and Provenance: Plant patent rights extend to plants asexually reproduced from the patented plant. The complaint alleges that visible graft lines confirm asexual reproduction and that the plants must be progeny of the patented variety because no other source is publicly available (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 41). A potential issue is whether the defendants can produce evidence of an independent and legal origin for their plants. The handwritten lease agreement is presented as key evidence of the defendants' activities and knowledge (Compl. Ex. 4, p. 29).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "substantially as described and illustrated herein"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the scope of the plant patent. The infringement analysis depends entirely on whether an accused plant possesses the collection of traits that are "substantially" the same as those detailed in the patent's specification and drawing. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is the sole determinant of claim scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The word "substantially" suggests that the claim is not limited to a plant that is a perfect replica in every single metric. It may be interpreted to allow for minor variations due to environmental conditions or somatic mutation, as long as the plant retains the essential and novel characteristics of the claimed variety.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a highly detailed list of dozens of specific, objective characteristics (e.g., "Internode length — Long; About 119.8 mm," "Single berry weight — About 7.0 grams," "Skin color (without bloom) — Red group 46A") (’664 Patent, col. 3:35, col. 5:10-14). A party could argue that "substantially" requires the accused plant to meet a very high percentage of these specific metrics, and that deviation in key commercial traits places a plant outside the claim's scope.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on allegations of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 163 and 271, alleging that all named defendants acted in concert to propagate, cultivate, and sell the infringing plants and grapes (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 33, 51).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the defendants' infringement was willful, asserting they had actual and constructive knowledge of the ’664 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 45, 52). The primary factual basis for this allegation is the defendants’ use of the SWEET CELEBRATION® trademark—which is specifically associated with the patented grape variety—in a commercial lease agreement and in marketing communications (Compl. ¶¶ 43-44).

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

  • A core issue will be one of genetic identity: Can the plaintiff's scientific evidence, particularly the alleged DNA marker analysis, prove to the court's satisfaction that the defendants' grapevines are asexual reproductions of the patented 'IFG 68-175' variety?
  • A second key question will be one of provenance and liability: As plant patent protection is predicated on asexual reproduction, the case may turn on whether the defendants can provide a credible, alternative source for their vines or if the evidence demonstrates they were, as alleged, illicitly propagated from patented material.
  • A final question will concern knowledge and willfulness: Does the defendants' alleged use of the well-known SWEET CELEBRATION® trademark in a lease agreement and sales efforts constitute sufficient evidence that they knew they were cultivating a protected variety, thereby supporting the claim for willful infringement and enhanced damages?