DCT

1:19-cv-02181

Steuben Foods Inc v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corp HP Hood LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Kogyo Co., Ltd., 10-CV-781, W.D.N.Y., 08/07/2012
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of New York based on Defendants doing business in the state, transacting business, or committing tortious acts within or causing injury within the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ aseptic filling machines infringe six U.S. patents related to high-speed aseptic packaging technology for food products.
  • Technical Context: Aseptic packaging involves sterilizing a container, filling it with a sterile product, and sealing it in a sterile environment, which is critical for creating shelf-stable liquid food products that do not require refrigeration.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff informed Defendant Kogyo of its patent development efforts around 2001 during unsuccessful business relationship discussions. Plaintiff later sent a formal written notice of the patents-in-suit to Defendants on September 25, 2009.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-02-02 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2001-04-03 U.S. Patent No. 6,209,591 Issued
2001 (approx.) Plaintiff alleges it informed Defendant Kogyo of its patent efforts
2002-11-05 U.S. Patent No. 6,475,435 Issued
2002-11-19 U.S. Patent No. 6,481,468 Issued
2003-03-25 U.S. Patent No. 6,536,188 Issued
2004-03-09 U.S. Patent No. 6,702,985 Issued
2004 (approx.) Defendant Kogyo allegedly contracted to sell first Accused Product
2005-09-20 U.S. Patent No. 6,945,013 Issued
2005 (approx.) First Accused Product allegedly installed at HP Hood facility
2005 (approx.) Defendant Kogyo allegedly acquired Hoppmann Corporation
2009 (approx.) Defendant allegedly offered to sell second Accused Product to HP Hood
2009-09-25 Plaintiff sent formal written notice of infringement to Defendants
2010-06 Alleged agreement reached for second Accused Product sale
2011 and/or 2012 Second Accused Product allegedly delivered
2012-08-07 Amended Complaint Filed

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

The complaint does not assert specific claims for any of the patents-in-suit. The analysis below is based on the general technology described in the patents and the broad infringement allegations in the complaint.

U.S. Patent No. 6,945,013 - "Method And Apparatus For Aseptic Packaging", Issued September 20, 2005

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint characterizes the invention as relating to methods for automatically and aseptically bottling sterilized foodstuffs at high speeds, specifically at rates greater than 100 bottles per minute (Compl. ¶13).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes methods and systems designed to overcome the challenges of high-speed aseptic packaging, which requires coordinated, rapid sterilization, filling, and sealing operations while maintaining a sterile environment to prevent contamination of low-acid food products (’013 Patent, col. 1:11-2:51). The solution involves specific sequences of disinfecting bottles, filling them with sterilized product, and applying sterilized lids at a high rate of throughput (’013 Patent, col. 3:9-24).
  • Technical Importance: Achieving aseptic packaging at speeds exceeding 100 bottles per minute is a significant commercial benchmark, enabling the mass production of shelf-stable products like milk and juices (Compl. ¶13).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify any specific claims asserted from the ’013 Patent.

U.S. Patent No. 6,702,985 - "Apparatus And Method For Providing Container Interior Sterilization In An Aseptic Processing Apparatus", Issued March 9, 2004

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint states the patent relates to apparatus and methods for sterilizing containers (Compl. ¶16). The patent's background section notes the difficulty of achieving uniform sterilization inside containers with small openings, such as bottles, where sterilant vapor can form difficult-to-remove droplets (’985 Patent, col. 1:60-2:13).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a system for sterilizing the interior of containers using an atomized sterilant (like hydrogen peroxide) followed by multiple sources of sterile air. A first source atomizes the sterilant, a second source of hot sterile air mixes with it to prevent droplet formation, and a third source of hot sterile drying air is used to activate the sterilant and dry the container interior (’985 Patent, col. 2:54-3:10). This multi-stage air supply system is designed to provide effective sterilization without leaving excessive chemical residue (’985 Patent, col. 2:54-3:10).
  • Technical Importance: Efficient and verifiable interior sterilization is a critical step in any aseptic packaging line, directly impacting product safety and shelf life (Compl. ¶16).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify any specific claims asserted from the ’985 Patent.

U.S. Patent No. 6,536,188 - "Method And Apparatus For Aseptic Packaging", Issued March 25, 2003

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to methods for high-speed aseptic packaging, particularly for aseptically bottling sterilized foodstuffs at rates greater than 100 bottles per minute (Compl. ¶17, ¶19). The invention focuses on the sequence and rate of disinfecting and filling containers to achieve commercial viability for mass-market shelf-stable products (Compl. ¶19).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims (Compl. ¶41).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants' "Infringing Machines" of embodying the patented inventions (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 6,481,468 - "Apparatus And Method For Providing Container Filling In An Aseptic Processing Apparatus", Issued November 19, 2002

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent concerns methods for controlling the flow of an aseptic product into a container (Compl. ¶20, ¶22). The technology centers on the use of a specialized valve and the maintenance of a sterile region surrounding the point where the product exits the valve, a key aspect of preventing contamination during the filling step (Compl. ¶22).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims (Compl. ¶41).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants' "Infringing Machines" of embodying the patented inventions (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 6,475,435 - "Apparatus And Method For Providing Sterilization Zones In An Aseptic Packaging Sterilization Tunnel", Issued November 5, 2002

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an apparatus and method for creating a plurality of distinct sterilization zones within a sterilization tunnel (Compl. ¶23, ¶25). These zones are maintained using pressurized gas and allow for different sterilant concentrations and gas flow rates at various stages of the packaging process, which can improve efficiency and effectiveness (Compl. ¶25).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims (Compl. ¶41).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants' "Infringing Machines" of embodying the patented inventions (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 6,209,591 - "Apparatus and Method for Providing Container Filling In An Aseptic Processing Apparatus", Issued April 3, 2001

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims apparatus and methods for filling containers that include a valve to control product flow, first and second sterile regions surrounding the product path, and a valve activation mechanism (Compl. ¶26, ¶28). The invention focuses on preventing contaminants from being carried from a less sterile region to a more sterile region by the movement of the valve mechanism itself (’591 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims (Compl. ¶41).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants' "Infringing Machines" of embodying the patented inventions (Compl. ¶30).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused products as "certain aseptic filling machines" (Compl. ¶30).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide a technical description of how the accused machines operate. Instead, it alleges that they embody the inventions claimed in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶30). The complaint alleges that Defendants manufacture, use, sell, and distribute these machines in the United States, and specifically identifies sales to food and beverage company HP Hood, LLC, with one machine installed around 2005 and another delivered in 2011 or 2012 (Compl. ¶30, ¶35, ¶38).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendants' "Infringing Machines" infringe the patents-in-suit but does not provide claim charts or any specific factual allegations mapping elements of any asserted claims to particular features or functionalities of the accused machines (Compl. ¶30, ¶41). As such, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the pleading. The infringement theory is a general allegation that the accused machines practice the patented inventions.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Questions: The central point of contention will be entirely factual: do the accused aseptic filling machines sold by Defendants practice the methods or contain the structures recited in any asserted claims of the six patents-in-suit? The complaint’s lack of detail suggests this will be a primary focus of discovery.
    • Scope Questions: Without specific claim assertions, it is not possible to identify particular claim scope disputes. However, in this technology area, disputes may arise over the meaning of terms defining the boundaries and conditions of sterile environments required by the patent claims versus those implemented in the accused systems.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint provides no basis for claim construction analysis, as it does not identify asserted claims or specific infringement theories. However, based on the technology described in the patents, the following term may become central to the dispute.

  • The Term: "continuously sterilized second sterile region" (from U.S. Patent No. 6,209,591, claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in a claim directed to a valve system designed to prevent contamination. The valve mechanism moves from a "second sterile region" into a "first sterile region" to dispense product. The requirement that this second region be "continuously sterilized" is likely a critical limitation for distinguishing the invention from prior art. Practitioners may focus on this term because the nature and frequency of the sterilization process (e.g., constant sterilant flow vs. periodic sterilization) in the accused machines will determine whether this element is met.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the second sterile region is "continuously sterilized during operation" (’591 Patent, col. 21:21-23). A party might argue this means the region must simply be maintained in a sterile state throughout the packaging operation, without necessarily requiring a constant, active flow of a sterilizing agent.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses an embodiment where a "sterilizing media 424 is supplied to the second sterile region 270A" (’591 Patent, col. 14:28-30). A party could argue this disclosure limits the claim to systems that actively and continuously supply a sterilizing medium (like steam or a chemical sterilant) to the region during operation, rather than merely isolating a pre-sterilized area.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement, asserting that Defendants sell the "Infringing Machines" to others in the U.S. (such as HP Hood) who then use the machines for their intended, and allegedly infringing, purposes (Compl. ¶31-32).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants "have and continue to willfully and wantonly infringe" (Compl. ¶46). The basis for willfulness is alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Kogyo has known of the patents since 2001 as a result of business discussions, and that Defendant Hoppmann has known since at least 2009, referencing a formal notice letter sent on September 25, 2009 (Compl. ¶33, ¶39, ¶44-45).

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

  • Evidentiary Proof of Infringement: A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof. Given the complaint's high-level allegations, the case will depend on Plaintiff’s ability to develop, through discovery, specific evidence showing that the accused aseptic filling machines perform the precise functions and contain the specific structures recited in the asserted claims of the six patents-in-suit.
  • Scope of Sterility Claims: The case may turn on a question of definitional scope: how will claim terms defining sterile environments, such as "continuously sterilized second sterile region," be construed? The outcome will depend on whether the accused machines' methods for maintaining sterility meet the specific requirements of the claims as interpreted by the court.
  • Willfulness and Pre-Suit Knowledge: A key question for damages will be willfulness. The court will need to determine whether Defendants' alleged knowledge of the patents, dating back to 2001 and reinforced by a 2009 notice letter, constitutes the "objective recklessness" standard required to support a finding of willful infringement and potential treble damages.