DCT

2:21-cv-02417

Emergy Inc v. Better Meat Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:21-cv-02417, E.D. Cal., 12/27/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that both defendants are residents of California and that a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claims occurred within the Eastern District of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges its former research fellow misappropriated trade secrets related to producing texturized mycelium-based food products, used that information to co-found a competing company, and improperly obtained a patent on the stolen technology naming himself as the sole inventor.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods of fermenting and processing mycelium (the root-like structure of fungi) to create a shelf-stable, high-protein food ingredient that mimics the fibrous texture of animal meat for use in alternative meat products.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendant The Better Meat Co. filed its own lawsuit against Emergy on December 17, 2021, just ten days prior to the filing of this action, indicating a contentious pre-suit history and a race to the courthouse.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-01-01 Emergy Inc. is formed.
2017-01-02 Emergy founders begin research at Argonne National Laboratory.
2017-05-10 Defendant Pattillo signs a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with Emergy.
2017-08-07 Emergy alleges conception of a shelf-stable food ingredient of a specific size.
2017-09-01 Emergy alleges development of a food product with plant ingredients.
2017-10-01 Defendant Pattillo begins work as an Applied Research Experience Fellow for Emergy.
2018-03-04 Emergy alleges cultivation of fungi in a specific liquid growth medium.
2018-05-05 Defendant Pattillo allegedly leaves Emergy.
2018-05-07 Defendant Pattillo's guest research appointment is officially terminated.
2018-05-01 Defendant Pattillo joins The Better Meat Co. as CTO and co-founder.
2018-09-20 The Better Meat Co. files provisional patent application ('137 Patent Priority Date).
2021-06-08 The Better Meat Co. publicly launches its "Rhiza" mycoprotein product.
2021-07-13 U.S. Patent No. 11,058,137 issues, naming Pattillo as sole inventor.
2021-12-27 Complaint filed.

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,058,137 - "Enhanced Aerobic Fermentation Methods for Producing Edible Fungal Mycelium Blended Meats and Meat Analogue Compositions"

  • 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 (’137 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a need for alternative protein sources to meet growing global demand, but notes that existing plant-based ingredients (e.g., from wheat, soy, pea) are often limited in functionality, may be allergens, and can require costly texturization processes (’137 Patent, col. 1:41-59). The complaint adds that prior art methods of processing mycelium resulted in unstructured, "mushy" products rather than ones with a fibrous, meat-like texture (Compl. ¶13).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a shelf-stable food ingredient made from cultured filamentous fungal biomass (Neurospora) with a limited amount of water (’137 Patent, Abstract). The process involves fermenting the fungi, then dewatering, shaping, and drying the biomass in a way that preserves its fibrous structure, which mimics muscle tissue and provides desirable texture and moisture retention when blended with meat or used in meat analogues (’137 Patent, col. 4:42-53; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This technology purports to create a versatile, meat-like, and potentially allergen-free protein ingredient that can be produced efficiently, stored long-term, and readily integrated into the food supply chain (’137 Patent, col. 2:40-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint focuses its inventorship challenge on independent claims 1 and 13.
  • Independent Claim 1 is a composition claim for a shelf-stable protein food ingredient, broken down into the following essential elements:
    • filamentous fungal particles from the genus Neurospora with a specified mean particle size;
    • said particles consisting essentially of:
      • cultured filamentous fungal biomass from the genus Neurospora in an amount of at least about 94-96% w/w; and
      • water in an amount of about 4% to about 6% w/w.
  • Independent Claim 13 is a method claim for producing a shelf-stable food ingredient, broken down into the following essential elements:
    • culturing a filamentous fungi (Neurospora) in a specific liquid growth medium to produce a biomass slurry;
    • harvesting and dewatering the biomass to produce a harvested biomass with a specific water/solids content;
    • pressing the harvested biomass to produce a slab;
    • shredding and sizing the slab to form particles of a specific size; and
    • drying the particles at a specific temperature.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to challenge other claims, but its theory of complete non-inventorship by the named inventor would apply to all claims if proven.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

This action does not allege patent infringement. Instead, the complaint alleges that the '137 Patent itself, and the associated commercial product "Rhiza" produced by Defendant The Better Meat Co., are the direct result of misappropriated trade secrets and incorrect inventorship (Compl. ¶¶ 68, 70, 73).

  • Product Identification: The '137 Patent and Defendant's "Rhiza" mycoprotein product (Compl. ¶65).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the "Rhiza" product is a mycoprotein ingredient touted for its whole-cut meat applications (Compl. ¶65). Defendant The Better Meat Co. allegedly claims on its website that the "Rhiza" product practices the invention disclosed in the '137 Patent (Compl. ¶70). The complaint further alleges that Defendants were able to launch a fully operational fermentation facility and bring the "Rhiza" product to market in an "unreasonably short period of time" only because they "stole Emergy's confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information" (Compl. ¶74).

IV. Analysis of Inventorship Allegations

The complaint does not allege infringement. It instead presents a detailed comparison between the claims of the '137 Patent and evidence of Plaintiff Emergy’s alleged prior conception and development of the same subject matter to support its claim for correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256. The core of this argument is presented in a chart spanning several pages (Compl. ¶69). A photograph included in the complaint shows various disc-shaped and shredded alternative meat products created in Emergy's lab (Compl. ¶69, p. 19).

'137 Patent Inventorship Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) Alleged Prior Conception/Development by Emergy Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a) culturing a filamentous fungi from the genus Neurospora in a liquid growth medium to produce a filamentous fungal biomass slurry... By no later than March 4, 2018, Emergy had allegedly cultivated Neurospora in a liquid growth medium with the recited composition. An accompanying photograph shows a glass vessel containing a culture medium. ¶69 (p. 21) col. 26:48-59
b) harvesting the filamentous fungal biomass and dewatering the filamentous fungal biomass... By no later than September 14, 2017, Emergy had allegedly harvested and dewatered fungal biomass to produce mycelium with the claimed water content. A lab notebook entry allegedly shows Mr. Pattillo performing this step. ¶69 (pp. 21-22) col. 26:60-63
c) pressing the harvested filamentous fungal biomass to produce a filamentous fungal biomass slab; By no later than May 15, 2017, Emergy had allegedly pressed harvested biomass to produce slabs. A lab notebook entry allegedly shows Mr. Pattillo performing this step, and photographs depict the resulting pressed slabs. ¶69 (pp. 22-23) col. 26:64-65
d) shredding and sizing the filamentous fungal biomass slab to form filamentous particles with a mean particle size... By no later than May 15, 2017, Emergy had allegedly shredded and sized biomass slabs into particles of the claimed size, as documented in its lab notebook and shown in an accompanying photograph of the resulting particles. ¶69 (p. 23) col. 32:1-4
e) drying the particles at about 50° C. to about 85° C. to form the shelf-stable food ingredient. By no later than August 2017, Emergy allegedly conducted this drying step, as shown in a photograph of particles in a convection oven and as documented in its master lab notebook. ¶69 (p. 23) col. 32:5-7
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Conception vs. Reduction to Practice: The central dispute is a factual one over inventorship. The complaint alleges that Emergy's founders, Drs. Huggins and Whiteley, conceived of the complete invention and that Mr. Pattillo, as a "junior lab technician," merely reduced their ideas to practice under their specific direction (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 132). The case will turn on evidence establishing who formed the "definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention."
    • Scope of Contribution: A key legal question is whether Mr. Pattillo's work, if any, rose to the level of an inventive contribution. The court will need to determine if he contributed to the conception of the subject matter of any single claim to qualify as a joint inventor, or if his work constituted only routine experimentation and skill ordinary in the art.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

While this is an inventorship dispute rather than an infringement case, the construction of key terms defines the scope of the invention whose parentage is at issue.

  • The Term: "consisting essentially of" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This transitional phrase is a term of art that limits the scope of the claim to the specified materials (fungal biomass and water) and those that do not materially affect the "basic and novel characteristic(s)" of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because the heart of the dispute is whether Emergy's founders conceived of this specific, narrowly defined composition, or if Mr. Pattillo's contribution was to refine a broader concept into this specific claimed formulation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not explicitly define the term, which could support giving it its ordinary meaning in patent law, allowing for the presence of unlisted ingredients so long as they are not material.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly emphasizes the simple, pure nature of the final product, which may suggest that the "basic and novel" characteristics are easily affected by additives, thereby narrowing what can be included under the "consisting essentially of" language (’137 Patent, col. 4:1-10).

  • The Term: "shelf-stable protein food ingredient" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The definition of "shelf-stable" is critical to defining the end product. The dispute will require evidence showing who conceived of the specific processing steps necessary to achieve this state. The complaint's evidence of Emergy developing a drying step to create a final ingredient aligns with this requirement (Compl. ¶69, p. 23).

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined with a specific water activity level or shelf life, which may support a more general, functional definition based on its ability to be stored without refrigeration.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific water content limitation in Claim 1 (4-6% w/w) provides a strong, objective anchor for the meaning of "shelf-stable" as used in that claim, suggesting a very dry, preserved state (’137 Patent, col. 31:4).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Trade Secret Misappropriation: The complaint alleges that Mr. Pattillo acquired Emergy's trade secrets—including processes, parameters, and experimental data—under an NDA and a confidential relationship, and subsequently disclosed and used them to form and build The Better Meat Co. (Compl. ¶¶ 93, 111). It further alleges The Better Meat Co. knew or had reason to know the information was acquired by improper means (Compl. ¶¶ 95, 113).
  • Correction of Inventorship: The complaint seeks to have the United States Patent and Trademark Office correct the inventorship of the '137 Patent by removing Mr. Pattillo and naming Drs. Huggins and Whiteley as the sole and true inventors, alleging they conceived of the entire invention and Mr. Pattillo made no inventive contribution (Compl. ¶¶ 131-133, Prayer for Relief ¶G).

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

  • A central issue will be a factual question of inventorship: can Emergy produce sufficient corroborating evidence, such as dated lab notebooks and communications, to prove that its founders conceived of the complete and operative invention claimed in the '137 Patent before Mr. Pattillo’s involvement, and that Mr. Pattillo’s subsequent work was merely the reduction to practice of their ideas?
  • A key related question will be the nexus between trade secrets and the patent claims: does the evidence demonstrate that the specific technical limitations and parameters recited in the '137 patent claims were derived directly from confidential information provided to Mr. Pattillo by Emergy, as opposed to information in the public domain or knowledge he developed independently?
  • The outcome for the corporate defendant will likely hinge on an evidentiary question of knowledge: what did The Better Meat Co. know about the source of Mr. Pattillo's technology and his obligations to Emergy, and at what point in their collaboration did they gain this knowledge? This will be critical for determining liability for trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition.