Bloom Fresh Intl Ltd v. Solorio

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Bloom Fresh International Limited (United Kingdom)
  • Defendant: Jesse Solorio; Del Sol Produce Sales, Inc.; [Jesse Solorio](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/jesse-solorio) & Sons Cold Storage, Inc.; Crescensio A. Mena; and Patricio A. Mena (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Wilke Fleury LLP; Panitch Schwarze Belisario & Nadel LLP
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01305, E.D. Cal., 10/02/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of California because the facts giving rise to the patent infringement claim occurred within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ unauthorized asexual propagation, cultivation, and sale of a patented grapevine variety constitutes patent infringement.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of horticulture and plant breeding, where patent protection for new and distinct, asexually reproducible plant varieties is a key commercial asset.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2009-06-05	U.S. Patent No. PP21,664 Priority Date
2011-01-25	U.S. Patent No. PP21,664 Issues
2025-01-18	Accused lease agreement executed between certain Defendants
2025-08-20	Plaintiff allegedly learns of Defendants' infringing activities
2025-10-02	Complaint Filed

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 addresses the need for a commercial table grape variety with a superior combination of traits compared to existing varieties (PP21,664 Patent, col. 2:16-24). Specifically, it sought to combine high visual appeal (large, uniform, bright red berries) and excellent eating quality (crisp texture, high sugar) with viticultural characteristics that reduce growing costs, such as the ability to develop proper color without extensive leaf removal or chemical applications (PP21,664 Patent, col. 1:25-32).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is a new and distinct grapevine variety, denominated ‘IFG 68-175’, which originated from a hand-pollinated cross of the ‘Redglobe’ and ‘Princess’ varieties (PP21,664 Patent, col. 1:8-10). The patent describes this specific plant as possessing the desired combination of aesthetic, gustatory, and horticultural traits, which are maintained through asexual reproduction (PP21,664 Patent, col. 1:12-19).
• Technical Importance: The invention’s purported technical importance lies in providing a commercially valuable grape that achieves desirable characteristics more efficiently, reducing labor and material costs for growers (PP21,664 Patent, col. 1:29-31).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of the patent’s sole 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.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, as there are no others in the patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the grapevine plants of the patented ‘IFG 68-175’ variety allegedly grown by Defendants in a fifteen-acre vineyard located at the "Porterville Field Property" in Porterville, California, as well as the grapes harvested and sold from those plants (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 32, 51).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants have asexually reproduced, cultivated, and used the patented grapevine plants to produce grapes for commercial sale (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 51). It is alleged that these grapes were marketed and offered for sale under the plaintiff’s SWEET CELEBRATION® trademark to a licensed marketer, positioning them directly in the commercial market for this protected fruit variety (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 31). The vines in the accused vineyard are alleged to be approximately eight years old (Compl. ¶34).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The central infringement allegation is that the Defendants have asexually reproduced the patented plant variety and are using and selling it without a license, in violation of the Plant Patent Act (35 U.S.C. § 163).

PP21,664 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1, as defined by the specification)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A new and distinct variety of grapevine plant...	Independent DNA testing (SSR marker analysis) of a plant sample from the Defendants' vineyard allegedly indicated the plant is the patented ‘IFG 68-175’ variety.	¶39	col. 1:3-4
...characterized by producing naturally large, round to oval, bright red seedless grapes.	The complaint alleges that visual inspection and taste testing of the plants and grapes from the vineyard demonstrate that they are phenotypically identical to the Asserted Variety and exhibit its characteristic grape size, shape, and color.	¶38	col. 1:25-29
...[reproducible true-to-type through] asexual reproduction.	The complaint alleges Defendants asexually reproduced the plants by taking cuttings and grafting them onto rootstock, pointing to visible graft lines on the plants as evidence.	¶40	col. 1:12-19
...having the characteristics substantially as described and illustrated herein.	The complaint alleges that the plants in the vineyard possess the full set of characteristics of the Asserted Variety, including flavor and sugar content (Brix).	¶¶ 38-39	col. 5:1-15

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: The case may turn on the reliability and admissibility of the plaintiff's evidence of identity. A central question will be whether the referenced DNA testing and phenotypic comparisons are sufficient to prove the accused plants are, in fact, asexual reproductions of the patented variety. The complaint asserts the DNA test result but does not provide the underlying report or methodology (Compl. ¶39).
• Scope Questions: Plant patent infringement requires proving that the accused plant was asexually reproduced from the patented plant (or a sport thereof). A question for the litigation will be whether the plaintiff can prove that the specific plants in the defendants' vineyard originated from the patented genetic line and were not, for instance, independently developed or derived from a sexually reproduced seed. The complaint’s theory rests on the premise that because the plant is not publicly available, any plant in the defendants’ possession must have been illegally propagated (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 41).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In plant patent litigation, the dispute is typically over identity rather than the construction of claim terms. However, the scope of the single claim is defined by one key phrase.

• The Term: "having the characteristics substantially as described and illustrated herein"
• Context and Importance: This phrase defines the scope of the patent right. The infringement analysis will require a comparison of the accused plant's characteristics to the totality of the characteristics detailed in the patent’s specification and drawings. The term "substantially" introduces a degree of flexibility, raising the question of how much deviation from the patent's description is permissible before a plant is considered non-infringing.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the word "substantially" suggests the patent is not limited to plants that are exact clones in every measurable aspect, but may also cover plants with minor, commercially insignificant variations that could arise from environmental factors or somatic mutation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides numerous detailed and quantitative descriptions, such as "Trunk diameter...6.8 cm," "Mature Cluster weight — About 797 g," and "Solid-sugar: About 21.8 Brix" (PP21,664 Patent, col. 3:21-22; col. 5:2; col. 4:63). A defendant may argue these specific metrics narrowly define the "characteristics" required for infringement, limiting the claim's scope to plants that conform closely to these objective measurements.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges direct infringement under the Plant Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 163 and 271, which provides the right to exclude others from asexually reproducing, using, or selling the patented plant (Compl. ¶51). No separate counts for inducement or contributory infringement are pleaded.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful based on having "actual and constructive knowledge" of the patent (Compl. ¶52). The primary factual basis for this allegation is a lease agreement between certain defendants for the vineyard, which allegedly uses Plaintiff's "SWEET CELEBRATION®" trademark to identify the grapes (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 43-44). The complaint includes a photograph of a handwritten lease agreement which explicitly references "UVAS Sweet celebration," the commercial name for grapes from the patented plant (Compl. ¶30, Ex. 4).

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

• A central issue will be one of varietal identity and provenance: What is the strength of the scientific evidence, particularly the referenced DNA analysis, to prove not only that the defendants' plants are genetically the patented 'IFG 68-175' variety, but also that they were derived through asexual reproduction from the patented line?
• A key question regarding damages and liability will be one of knowing infringement: Does the defendants' use of the "Sweet Celebration" trade name in a lease agreement (Compl., Ex. 4) prove they had actual knowledge of infringing the patent, or could it be framed as knowledge of only a commercial brand name, potentially weakening the basis for enhanced damages?
• Finally, the case will present a question of proving the infringing act: Can the plaintiff establish that the defendants themselves performed the prohibited act of asexual reproduction, or will the evidence only show that they were in possession of already-propagated, infringing plants obtained from an unknown source?