DCT
1:25-cv-01208
Gyroplant Ltd v. Kappa Agtech LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: GyroPlant Ltd. (United Kingdom)
- Defendant: Kappa AgTech, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Barnes & Thornburg, LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01208, D. Del., 09/29/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware on the basis that Defendant Kappa AgTech, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and is therefore subject to personal jurisdiction in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its agricultural technology products do not infringe Defendant's patent related to devices for growing crops in hydroponic systems.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on non-fibrous, reusable media for supporting plants in hydroponic or aeroponic cultivation systems, a technology aimed at reducing waste and operational costs in controlled environment agriculture.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint details a series of communications initiated by Defendant Kappa, beginning with a general notice of its "recently issued patent" and escalating to specific infringement accusations against Plaintiff's products, a demand to cease all U.S. sales, and threats of litigation, including before the U.S. International Trade Commission. Plaintiff filed this action in response to these threats.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-08-01 | ’249 Patent Priority Date |
| 2020-01-01 | GyroPlant established |
| 2020-07-30 | ’249 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2022-01-01 | GyroPlant launches GyroCup™ product |
| 2025-03-18 | ’249 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-03-22 | Kappa contacts GyroPlant regarding "recently issued patent" |
| 2025-06-28 | Kappa asserts GyroCup™ infringes claims of the ’249 Patent |
| 2025-07-22 | Kappa provides a summary claim chart to GyroPlant |
| 2025-09-18 | Kappa sends a final letter demanding cessation of U.S. activity |
| 2025-09-29 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,253,249 - Device and Method for Growing Crops with Non-Fibrous and Non-Consumable Media
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Traditional hydroponic systems often rely on single-use, fibrous media (like rockwool or peat) to germinate seeds and support plants. This media represents an ongoing economic cost, can require extensive cleaning for reuse, and may not qualify for organic certification (’249 Patent, col. 2:25-49).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a reusable device made of a synthetic polymer, such as silicone rubber, that uses flexible, non-fibrous protrusions to support a seed or plant. This structure creates a "delineation" between a "root zone," which receives nutrient-rich water, and a "shoot zone," which is exposed to air and light, thereby replacing the need for consumable fibrous media (’249 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:11-20). The device is designed so that water applied to either side is directed toward the root zone (’249 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The invention purports to offer a durable, reusable, and easily cleanable alternative to consumable media, potentially lowering operational costs and waste in commercial hydroponic farming (’249 Patent, col. 1:5-12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint references Defendant's assertion of at least claims 1-5 and 9-13 (Compl. ¶24). Independent claim 1 (a device) and independent claim 9 (a method) are quoted in the complaint (Compl. ¶¶20-21).
- Independent Claim 1 (Device):
- A first plurality of flexible protrusions comprising a synthetic, non-biodegradable polymer.
- The protrusions are attached to a structure that defines a delineation between a root zone and a shoot zone.
- The protrusions are sufficient to suspend seeds in air, preventing them from passing through the delineation under their own weight, both pre- and post-germination.
- The protrusions are also sufficient to support plants, clones, cuttings, or root stock.
- The first plurality of protrusions can move from a resting position to a flexed position in response to an external force and return to rest upon its removal.
- A second plurality of flexible protrusions comprising a synthetic, non-biodegradable polymer is attached to the structure.
- The resting position of the first plurality is further described by one or more protrusions of the first plurality making contact with one or more protrusions in the second plurality.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but references Defendant's allegation that GyroPlant's products infringe claims 1-5 and 9-13 (Compl. ¶31).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The GyroCup™ and GyroSnap™ products (Compl. ¶¶13-14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the GyroCup™ as a "molded silicone rubber growing cup" that is supplied flat and can be inverted to form a "cone-shaped matrix" of legs to support plant growth (Compl. ¶13). The image provided shows a device with a round head and numerous flexible, downward-pointing legs that form the cone. (Compl. p. 3). The design is intended to fit in standard plug holes while allowing air and nutrient flow to the roots (Compl. ¶13).
- The GyroSnap™ is described as a modified version of the GyroCup™ with "two wider prongs," designed to accommodate smaller seed types (Compl. ¶14). The accompanying image shows a device with a similar head but with two broad, paddle-like legs instead of the multi-leg matrix of the GyroCup™. (Compl. p. 3).
- The complaint alleges that GyroPlant is an innovator in the agricultural technology space and is expanding into the U.S. market, including through participation in an incubator program at New York University (Compl. ¶¶11, 35-36).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, rebutting accusations made by Defendant Kappa. The following chart summarizes the potential application of the asserted claim elements to the accused products, as can be inferred from the complaint's descriptions and denials.
U.S. Patent No. 12,253,249 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A first plurality of flexible protrusions comprising a synthetic, non-biodegradable polymer... | The GyroCup™ features multiple flexible "legs" made of molded silicone rubber that form a cone-shaped matrix. | ¶13 | col. 3:11-15 |
| ...wherein the flexible protrusions are attached to a structure that defines a delineation between a root zone and a shoot zone... | The round head of the GyroCup™ fits into a plug hole, with the legs extending below to support roots and the area above the head supporting the plant shoot. | ¶13 | col. 3:15-20 |
| ...wherein the flexible protrusions are sufficient to suspend one or more seeds in air... | The cone-shaped matrix of legs is described as providing "support to grow." | ¶13 | col. 3:39-43 |
| ...wherein a second plurality of flexible protrusions comprising a synthetic, non-biodegradable polymer is attached to the structure of the device... | Plaintiff explicitly denies that its products contain this element, stating that neither the GyroCup™ nor the GyroSnap™ contains a "second plurality of flexible protrusions." | ¶44 | col. 4:43-47 |
| ...and wherein, the resting position of the first plurality... is further described by... the first plurality... making contact with... protrusions in the second plurality. | Plaintiff explicitly denies this limitation, arguing that because its products lack a second plurality of protrusions, this required contact cannot occur. | ¶44 | col. 4:48-54 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Structural Questions: The central dispute articulated in the complaint is whether the accused GyroCup™ and GyroSnap™ products meet the claim limitations requiring both a "first plurality" and a "second plurality" of flexible protrusions. Plaintiff GyroPlant contends its products do not contain a second plurality at all (Compl. ¶44).
- Scope Questions: A dispositive issue will be how the court construes the claim term "a second plurality of flexible protrusions." The analysis will question whether different sections of the single "cone-shaped matrix" of the GyroCup™ could be argued to constitute separate "pluralities" or if the claim requires two physically distinct sets of protrusions.
- Functional Questions: Related to the structural question, the court will need to address the final limitation of claim 1, which requires that the "resting position" of the first plurality is defined by its contact with the second. Plaintiff argues that since no second plurality exists, this functional limitation cannot be met (Compl. ¶44).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a second plurality of flexible protrusions"
Context and Importance
This term appears to be the primary basis for Plaintiff's non-infringement argument (Compl. ¶44). The presence or absence of a structure meeting this definition in the accused products is a dispositive issue. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused products are found to have only a single plurality of protrusions, they cannot literally infringe claim 1.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification does not appear to provide an explicit definition distinguishing the first and second pluralities. A party might argue that any two distinct groups of protrusions on the device could satisfy the limitation, even if they are part of a larger integrated structure. The claim language only requires that the second plurality is "attached to the structure of the device," not that it be separate from the first (Compl. ¶20; ’249 Patent, col. 5:43-47).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The final "wherein" clause states that the resting position of the first plurality is described by its contact with the second plurality (’249 Patent, col. 5:48-54). This suggests two distinct sets of structures interacting with each other, rather than different parts of a single, uniform structure. GyroPlant's argument that its products lack this feature implies it interprets the claim as requiring two separate and interacting sets of protrusions (Compl. ¶44).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that GyroPlant has not engaged in contributory or induced infringement of the ’249 patent. It asserts that there is no underlying direct infringement and that GyroPlant has not acted with the specific knowledge or intent required for such claims (Compl. ¶45).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint does not address willfulness directly, as it is a defensive action seeking a declaration of non-infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action appears to hinge on fundamental questions of claim scope and construction. The outcome will likely be determined by the court’s answers to the following:
- A core issue will be one of structural definition: Does the claim language requiring both a "first plurality" and a "second plurality" of protrusions mandate two physically distinct and separate structures, or can it be read to cover different functional sections of a single, integrated component like the "cone-shaped matrix" of the accused GyroCup™?
- A related and critical question is one of functional interaction: Can the claim limitation requiring contact between the first and second pluralities to define a "resting position" be satisfied by the accused products? If the court determines the products lack a distinct "second plurality," this limitation cannot be met, which may be dispositive for a finding of non-infringement.