DCT

2:21-cv-02338

Better Meat Co v. Emergy Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:21-cv-02338, E.D. Cal., 12/17/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of California because Defendants directed tortious misstatements and threats into the state, including to the Plaintiff and its potential investors located in California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that it is the rightful owner and its employee the rightful inventor of a patent related to mycoprotein food products, alleging Defendants have falsely claimed inventorship to tortiously interfere with Plaintiff's fundraising efforts.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for producing shelf-stable, animal-free proteins from fungal mycelium for use as meat substitutes or meat enhancers in the alternative protein market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that shortly after Plaintiff's patent issued, Defendant Emergy sent letters claiming its founders invented the patented technology and demanding assignment of the patent. Plaintiff alleges these claims are baseless and part of a campaign to disrupt its Series A financing round, which included direct communications from Defendants to Plaintiff's lead investor. The complaint also notes that Defendant Emergy’s own patent applications in the field have been rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-09-20 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,058,137 (via Provisional)
2019 Emergy allegedly changes business focus to animal-free meat
2019-09-20 U.S. Patent No. 11,058,137 filed
2021-07-13 U.S. Patent No. 11,058,137 issues
2021-07-16 Emergy sends letters to BMC alleging incorrect inventorship
2021-08-05 BMC responds to Emergy's letters
2021-08-25 Emergy responds with what BMC calls deficient "evidence"
2021-09-08 BMC responds to Emergy's "evidence"
2021-11 BMC begins engaging investors for Series A financing
2021-12-15 Emergy sends letter threatening litigation to BMC
2021-12-17 Complaint filed

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,058,137 ("ENHANCED AEROBIC FERMENTATION METHODS FOR PRODUCING EDIBLE FUNGAL MYCELIUM BLENDED MEATS AND MEAT ANALOGUE COMPOSITIONS"), issued July 13, 2021.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the alternative protein market as being limited by its reliance on a few plant proteins (wheat, soy, pea) that can be costly, allergenic, or functionally constrained. (’137 Patent, col. 1:41-59). It also notes that producing meat via animal agriculture is resource-intensive and inefficient. (’137 Patent, col. 1:26-40).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention uses fungal fermentation to convert nutrient sources, including low-value waste streams from food processing, into a high-quality, shelf-stable protein ingredient. (’137 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:55-62). This "textured cultured protein" is processed to have specific physical properties, such as a filamentous texture and high moisture retention, that allow it to mimic the characteristics of muscle fiber and function effectively as a meat substitute or extender. (’137 Patent, col. 3:56-67).
  • Technical Importance: The technology purports to create a versatile, cost-effective, and potentially allergen-free protein ingredient that can overcome the limitations of existing texturized vegetable proteins, a key supply chain component for the plant-based food industry. (’137 Patent, col. 2:44-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • While the complaint seeks a declaratory judgment on the entire patent, the dispute centers on the subject matter of the independent claims. Independent Claim 1 recites:
    • A shelf-stable protein food ingredient comprising:
    • filamentous fungal particles from the genus Neurospora
    • with a mean particle size between about 5 mm and about 20 mm or between about 5 mm and about 50 mm,
    • said filamentous fungal particles consisting essentially of:
      • a) cultured filamentous fungal biomass from the genus Neurospora in an amount at least about 94-96% w/w; and
      • b) water in an amount of about 4% to about 6% w/w.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint is a declaratory judgment action regarding patent inventorship and ownership, not a direct patent infringement action. Therefore, it does not identify an accused product or instrumentality alleged to infringe the ’137 Patent. The core of the dispute centers on Defendant Emergy's alleged conduct of falsely claiming to have invented the technology disclosed and claimed in the ’137 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 3-4, 31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of patent infringement. The primary legal claim related to the patent is a request for a declaratory judgment of correct inventorship and ownership under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. (Compl. ¶¶ 67-73). Consequently, no claim chart analysis is applicable.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention: The pleadings raise several questions central to the inventorship dispute:
    • Conception: A primary factual question is who first conceived of the specific invention defined by the claims of the ’137 Patent, particularly the combination of a Neurospora-based biomass processed to achieve specific, claimed limitations for particle size and water weight. (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 21-22; ’137 Patent, cl. 1).
    • Sufficiency of Evidence: A key evidentiary question is whether the proof allegedly provided by Emergy, which the complaint characterizes as "unidentified, undated pictures of mycelial discs and chunks," is sufficient to demonstrate conception of the complete and operative invention, or if it merely shows general work with fungal biomass that falls short of the specific claim limitations. (Compl. ¶35).
    • Corroboration: A central legal hurdle for any inventorship challenge is corroboration. The court will examine whether Emergy can produce sufficient, corroborated evidence to support its allegation that its founders conceived of the invention and communicated it to the named inventor, Augustus H. Pattillo, prior to his work for the Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶¶ 30-31, 69).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a mean particle size between about 5 mm and about 20 mm or between about 5 mm and about 50 mm" (’137 Patent, cl. 1)

  • Context and Importance: The complaint identifies "particle-size... limitations" as a core technology that Emergy falsely claims to have invented. (Compl. ¶3). The construction of this term will be critical in determining whether any prior work by Emergy could be considered conception of the claimed invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specificity of the ranges is a likely point of novelty over prior art experimentation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses multiple methods for sizing the biomass, including shredding, chopping, and dicing, and uses the word "about," which may suggest the numerical ranges are not intended to be absolute. (’137 Patent, col. 8:20-44).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed examples provide more concrete data points. Example 8 describes a tested product with an average particle size of 5 mm, and another process is described that uses sieves to isolate particles between 2 mm and 12 mm. (’137 Patent, col. 27:6-7; col. 9:4-13). Such specific embodiments could be cited to argue for a more constrained meaning of the claimed ranges.

  • The Term: "consisting essentially of" (’137 Patent, cl. 1)

  • Context and Importance: This transitional phrase limits the claimed food ingredient to the recited components (fungal biomass and water), permitting only unrecited elements that do not materially affect the ingredient's "basic and novel properties." The inventorship dispute could turn on whether Emergy's alleged prior work involved other materials (e.g., residual substrates) that would fall outside the scope of this term.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that this language allows for trace elements or incidental impurities from processing that do not alter the fundamental character of the shelf-stable protein ingredient.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly emphasizes the goal of producing a "pure fungal mycelium" product and harvesting it from the growth medium. (’137 Patent, col. 5:12-14; col. 5:27-30). This could support an interpretation that narrowly circumscribes the permissible amount and type of any unrecited components.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Tortious Interference: The complaint alleges that Defendants, knowing of Plaintiff's relationships with prospective investors, intentionally acted to disrupt those relationships. (Compl. ¶53). The alleged acts include sending letters with "objectively and subjectively baseless" claims of patent ownership to Plaintiff, knowing they would need to be disclosed to investors, and having Defendant Vronsky directly email Plaintiff's lead investor to warn of an "invented 'dispute'". (Compl. ¶¶ 55-56).
  • Unfair Competition: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' conduct, including the alleged tortious interference and fraudulent misrepresentations, constitutes unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices under California Business & Professions Code § 17200. (Compl. ¶64). The alleged purpose of this conduct was to gain an unfair competitive advantage by disrupting a competitor's ability to raise capital. (Compl. ¶65).

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

  • A core issue will be one of inventorship and proof: Can Emergy provide sufficient and properly corroborated evidence to demonstrate that its founders conceived of the specific combination of a Neurospora biomass processed to a particular mean particle size and water content, as claimed in the '137 Patent, prior to the work of the named inventor?
  • A central question will be the relationship between prior work and the claimed invention: Does Emergy's alleged prior research, described in the complaint as general work on "mycelial discs and chunks," constitute conception of the specific, quantified invention of Claim 1, or does it represent preliminary, generalized experimentation that falls short of a complete and definite idea of the patented invention?
  • The case may also turn on the intent underlying Defendants' communications: Were the letters sent to the Plaintiff and the email sent to its lead investor a good-faith effort to protect legitimate intellectual property rights, or do they represent, as the complaint alleges, a bad-faith scheme using baseless claims to tortiously interfere with a competitor's financing?