DCT

1:25-cv-01305

Bloom Fresh Intl Ltd v. Solorio

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-06-05 ’664 Patent Priority Date
2011-01-25 ’664 Patent Issue Date
2025-01-18 Accused Lease Agreement Signed
2025-08-20 Plaintiff Alleges It Learned of Infringement
2025-10-02 Complaint Filing Date

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

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent summary suggests a market need for grape varieties that combine excellent aesthetic and taste qualities with favorable viticultural characteristics. Specifically, it notes the ability to develop a desirable bright red skin color without requiring costly interventions such as "extensive leaf removal or ethrel applications" (’664 Patent, col. 1:28-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a new and distinct variety of grapevine, named ‘IFG 68-175’, which originated from a hand-pollinated cross of the ‘Redglobe’ and ‘Princess’ varieties (’664 Patent, col. 1:7-9). The patented plant is defined by a unique combination of traits, including producing "naturally large, round to oval red seedless berries" with "crisp texture, excellent eating quality" that ripen mid-season (’664 Patent, col. 1:24-27). The specification provides a detailed botanical description, including metrics for the vine, shoots, leaves, and fruit to distinguish it from known varieties (’664 Patent, cols. 3-5).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed invention provides a grape variety with a combination of high visual appeal, positive eating quality, and viticultural characteristics that can reduce growing costs (’664 Patent, col. 1:18-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of Claim 1, the sole claim of the patent (Compl. ¶51).
  • The claim protects:
    • A new and distinct variety of grapevine plant having the characteristics substantially as described and illustrated herein (’664 Patent, col. 6:13-15).
  • The complaint does not reserve the right to assert other claims, as none exist in a plant patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are living grapevine plants allegedly of the patented ‘IFG 68-175’ variety located at a vineyard in Porterville, California (the "Vineyard"), as well as the grapes harvested from those plants (Compl. ¶¶25, 32, 38).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused grapevines are being cultivated for the purpose of producing and harvesting table grapes for commercial sale (Compl. ¶¶18, 19). It further alleges that defendants offered these grapes for sale under the SWEET CELEBRATION® trademark, which is the commercial brand name used by Plaintiff for grapes of the patented variety (Compl. ¶¶10, 29). Plaintiff contends that defendants are not licensed to grow or sell the patented variety and must have obtained the plant material through illegal propagation (Compl. ¶¶27, 36, 41).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

PP21,664 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. The complaint alleges the plants in the Vineyard are the patented 'IFG 68-175' variety based on several grounds: 1) phenotypical identity, including grape size, color, and uniformity; 2) taste characteristics, including sugar content (Brix); 3) independent DNA testing (SSR marker analysis) that allegedly confirmed the identity of the plant; and 4) visual evidence of grafting, indicating the plants were asexually reproduced. ¶¶38-40 col. 6:13-15

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The central issue is one of identity. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the plaintiff can prove that the accused grapevine plants are, in fact, asexually reproduced progeny of the patented ‘IFG 68-175’ variety and thus fall within the scope of the claim.
  • Technical Questions: A primary technical question concerns the evidence of identity. What is the reliability and methodology of the "Independent DNA testing (SSR marker analysis)" alleged in the complaint (Compl. ¶39)? The defense may scrutinize the chain of custody of the tested sample and the scientific validity of the conclusion that the defendants' plants are necessarily progeny of the patented variety. The complaint also references a handwritten lease agreement. Exhibit 4 to the complaint provides a copy of this handwritten lease, which explicitly references "UVAS Sweet celebration" ("Sweet Celebration Grapes"), linking the accused plants to the trademark for the patented variety (Compl., Ex. 4).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "having the characteristics substantially as described and illustrated herein"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the entire scope of protection for the plant patent. Infringement is determined by comparing the accused plant to the characteristics detailed in the specification. Practitioners may focus on the word "substantially," as it introduces a degree of breadth beyond a literal, exact match to every metric in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of "substantially" implies that the plant need not be an identical match in every conceivable metric, so long as it possesses the core, distinguishing combination of traits that define the new variety. The patent's summary emphasizes a "unique combination of characteristics" rather than any single measurement (’664 Patent, col. 1:18-19).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides precise quantitative and qualitative data, including color values from The R.H.S. Colour Chart (e.g., "Inner bark color — 174A"), dimensions ("About 119.8 mm"), and weights ("About 7.0 grams") (’664 Patent, col. 3:25-26; col. 3:35; col. 5:10-11). A party could argue that "substantially" requires a very close conformance to these specific, objective metrics.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: While the complaint pleads direct infringement, the factual allegations may support theories of indirect infringement. The complaint alleges that certain defendants (the "Mena Defendants") own the property and "made and used" the patented plants in connection with leasing the Vineyard to other defendants (the "Solorio Defendants"), who in turn cultivated and offered the grapes for sale (Compl. ¶¶1, 25, 30). These facts could raise questions of induced infringement, wherein one party supplied the infringing articles and knew the other party would use them to infringe.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that defendants acted with actual and constructive knowledge of the ’664 Patent and that their infringement was willful (Compl. ¶52). The primary factual basis for this allegation is the defendants’ use of the SWEET CELEBRATION® trademark—the known commercial name for grapes from the patented plant—in their lease agreement and in marketing communications (Compl. ¶¶37, 43, 44).

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

  • A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Will the plaintiff's proffered evidence, particularly the DNA analysis and phenotypic comparisons, be sufficient to establish that the defendants' plants are asexually reproduced clones of the patented 'IFG 68-175' variety?
  • A key question for damages and liability will be culpability and apportionment: How will liability be divided between the property owners who allegedly provided the infringing plants and the lessees who cultivated and commercialized the fruit? The court’s view of their "acting in concert" will be critical.
  • A central question for willfulness will be knowledge and intent: Does the defendants' documented use of the "SWEET CELEBRATION®" trademark in a commercial lease irrefutably establish that they knew the plants were the protected 'IFG 68-175' variety and thus willfully infringed the ’664 Patent?