Bunge Loders Croklaan USA LLC v. Cargill Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Bunge Loders Croklaan USA, LLC (Illinois)
  • Defendant: Cargill, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00884, D. Del., 11/06/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware based on Defendant Cargill, Inc.’s incorporation in that state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s edible shortening products infringe a patent related to specific vegetable fat compositions designed to be low in trans and saturated fats while maintaining desirable food properties.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses a key challenge in food science: creating healthier bakery and confectionery fats that do not compromise on taste, texture, or mouthfeel, a significant factor in the consumer food products market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prolonged history of interaction between the parties concerning the patented technology. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was aware of the patent family as early as 2009 through its citation in a Brazilian patent application and again in a 2019 European opposition proceeding. The complaint also details a 2023 notice letter from Plaintiff to Defendant, a subsequent response from Defendant, and 2024 license negotiations during which Defendant allegedly disclosed it had prepared a draft inter partes review petition.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,645,473 - "Fat Composition"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,645,473, "Fat Composition," issued January 12, 2010 (’473 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the consumer demand for food products with low trans fatty acid and low saturated fatty acid (SAFA) content. The background notes that simply lowering these components is a "complex problem," as it often compromises the "organoleptic properties"—such as taste, texture, and mouthfeel—that make food products acceptable to consumers (’473 Patent, col. 1:9-19).
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a specific vegetable fat composition that achieves the desired health benefits without sacrificing sensory qualities. The solution is not merely a blend of oils, but a precise formulation defined by the weight percentages of specific triglyceride types (e.g., SSS, SUS, SSU, where 'S' is a saturated and 'U' is an unsaturated fatty acid residue) and ratios between them (’473 Patent, col. 2:9-34). This specific chemical profile is designed to provide the physical properties (e.g., structure, aeration, mouthfeel) traditionally supplied by less healthy fats (’473 Patent, col. 3:1-4).
• Technical Importance: The invention provided a technical pathway for food manufacturers to create "healthier" bakery and confectionery products that could still meet consumer expectations for texture and taste.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (’473 Patent, col. 7:20-41; Compl. ¶42).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A vegetable fat composition comprising glycerides, wherein the triglyceride content meets five specific percentage ranges:
    • 6 to 20% SSS
    • 5 to less than 20% SUS
    • 5 to less than 25% SSU
    • 10 to 39% SU₂
    • at least 20% U₃
  • The composition must also meet three specific ratio or content limitations:
    • The weight ratio SUS/SSU is between 0.5 and 2.0.
    • The weight ratio of certain long-chain saturated fatty acids (C18-24) to C16 saturated fatty acids is less than 0.2.
    • The total content of arachidic and behenic acid residues is less than 3%.
  • Finally, the overall saturated fatty acid residue content of the triglycerides must be less than 45% by weight.
• The complaint also references Claim 20 in its allegations of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶73).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the "Accused Products" as Cargill's PalmAgility® 516, PalmAgility® 507, Regal™ Icing Shortening NH, and Advantage® PNC-111 Icing Shortening (Compl. ¶¶22, 28). The allegations focus primarily on the PalmAgility® 516 product.

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Products are edible oils and shortenings marketed for bakery and confectionery applications (Compl. ¶20). They are described as "next-generation oil and shortening solutions" created by Defendant's R&D team (Compl. ¶21). The complaint includes a table from Defendant's marketing materials specifying the ingredients of the "PalmAgility® 516 Icing Shortening" as "Palm Oil, Canola Oil..." and listing its Solid Fat Content (SFC) at various temperatures (Compl. ¶22). Plaintiff alleges these products are sold to customers, such as bakeries, for use in food preparation (Compl. ¶24).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'473 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that the Accused Products meet each of the nine distinct quantitative limitations of Claim 1. A central point of contention will be the factual evidence, likely from analytical chemistry techniques like gas chromatography, required to prove that the precise chemical composition of the accused shortenings falls within every claimed numerical range and ratio.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide to support its conclusory allegations that the accused PalmAgility® 516 product meets each specific triglyceride percentage and fatty acid ratio? The complaint asserts these facts but does not present the underlying analytical data that would be necessary to substantiate them.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "all percentages are by weight based on the total triglycerides present in the composition"
• Context and Importance: This phrase defines the basis for every quantitative measurement required by the claim. Its interpretation is critical for determining infringement, as the method of calculation directly impacts whether an accused product's measured values fall inside or outside the claimed ranges. Practitioners may focus on this term because commercial shortening products often contain non-triglyceride components (e.g., emulsifiers like the "Mono and Diglycerides and Polysorbate 60" listed for the accused product (Compl. ¶22)). The dispute may center on whether these non-triglyceride components should be included in the denominator for the weight percentage calculations.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of the claim itself appears to provide the strongest evidence for an interpretation that bases the calculation solely on the triglyceride content. The phrase specifies that percentages are "based on the total triglycerides present," which suggests that other components of the commercial "composition" should be excluded from the calculation basis (’473 Patent, col. 7:36-38).
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the term "composition" refers to the final product as sold and that the phrase "based on" allows for a calculation method that accounts for all ingredients. However, the intrinsic evidence from the patent appears to more directly support the narrower reading focused exclusively on the triglyceride fraction.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint asserts induced infringement, alleging that Defendant knowingly encourages its customers, such as bakeries, to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (e.g., "as an ingredient in baking" per Claim 20) (Compl. ¶73). Evidence cited for this intent includes Defendant's marketing materials and instructions for use distributed with the products (Compl. ¶78).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint makes detailed allegations to support willfulness. It asserts that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent family dating back to at least 2009, based on Defendant's alleged citation of the '473 Patent's published application in its own foreign patent filings and in a 2019 European opposition (Compl. ¶¶37-39). The complaint further alleges that infringement continued after Defendant received an explicit notice letter from Plaintiff on April 27, 2023 (Compl. ¶¶26, 66).

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

• A central issue will be one of quantitative proof: what analytical evidence will be presented to establish that the accused shortening products meet all nine of the specific numerical percentage and ratio limitations required by Claim 1, and will the parties' respective testing methodologies and results align?
• A key question for damages will be one of willfulness: given the extensive history of alleged knowledge detailed in the complaint—including citations in Defendant’s own patent filings over a decade ago and direct pre-suit communications—did Defendant's alleged infringement rise to the level of being knowing, intentional, and willful?