DCT

1:25-cv-01333

Weber Food Technology Se & Co KG v. Provisur Tech Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01333, D. Del., 10/31/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s industrial food processing systems infringe three patents related to electromagnetic transport systems for food portions and advanced food slicing apparatuses.
  • Technical Context: The technology operates within the industrial food processing sector, focusing on high-speed, automated slicing and handling of products such as meat and cheese, a market where production efficiency, flexibility, and hygiene are critical competitive factors.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted technologies, citing the German parent application of the ’403 Patent during its own patent prosecution activities as early as 2021, and citing the U.S. application publication of the ’177 Patent during prosecution as early as February 2023. These allegations form the basis for claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-04-25 U.S. Patent No. 10,737,403 Priority Date
2016-02-01 U.S. Patent No. 12,162,177 Priority Date
2020-07-29 U.S. Patent No. 12,246,467 Priority Date
2020-08-11 U.S. Patent No. 10,737,403 Issued
2023-02-20 Defendant allegedly cited ’177 Patent application publication
2024-12-10 U.S. Patent No. 12,162,177 Issued
2025-03-11 U.S. Patent No. 12,246,467 Issued
2025-10-17 Accused FMS product marketing videos posted
2025-10-31 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,737,403 - “AUTONOMOUSLY ELECTROMAGNETIC TRANSPORT CARRIER OF FOOD PORTIONS” (issued Aug. 11, 2020)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section details the technical limitations of conventional conveyor belt systems used in food processing. These systems are described as having high mechanical effort, limited flexibility in layout, problematic transitions between sections that can damage delicate food portions, and significant cleaning challenges to meet high hygiene standards (Compl. ¶23; ’403 Patent, col. 1:45-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an apparatus that replaces rigid conveyor belts with a plurality of individually movable "transport movers." These movers travel along a predefined track system, with their movement independently controlled by an electromagnetic drive system formed by the interaction between a rotor on each mover and the track system itself (’403 Patent, col. 2:5-19). This "individual transportation" concept allows each food portion to be moved independently, enabling complex and flexible routing, buffering, and sorting operations (’403 Patent, col. 2:56-62).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for highly flexible, automated handling of sliced food products that could overcome the rigidity and hygienic drawbacks of traditional conveyor systems, allowing for more complex multi-lane processing and packaging operations (’403 Patent, col. 2:50-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶41). The essential elements of Claim 1 include:

  • A plurality of individually movable transport movers for food portions.
  • A track system for the movers.
  • A control device for controlling the movers' movements.
  • A transfer device including a plurality of parallel conveyor belts for moving portions onto the transport movers.
  • Each transport mover having at least one rotor and a carrier, where the carrier comprises a plurality of rods defining spaces large enough to receive one of the conveyor belts from the transfer device.
  • An electromagnetic drive for each mover, formed by the rotor and the track system.

U.S. Patent No. 12,162,177 - “CUTTING FOOD PRODUCTS” (issued Dec. 10, 2024)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Prior art food slicers often relied on large, external product scanner machines placed upstream of the slicer to determine a food product's contour for weight-controlled slicing. The patent notes this approach increases production line length and cost, and creates potential for inaccuracies if the product's shape changes during transport from the scanner to the cutting blade (Compl. ¶29; ’177 Patent, col. 2:5-19).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention integrates a compact, contactless contour scanner directly within the "working region" of the slicer itself, proximate to the cutting blade (’177 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-25). This embedded sensor, comprising a laser and camera, detects the product's outer contour immediately before slicing, allowing a control device to precisely manage the product feed to obtain slices of constant weight (’177 Patent, col. 2:20-25, 60-64).
  • Technical Importance: By integrating the scanning function into the slicer, the invention aimed to reduce the physical footprint and cost of the production line while improving slicing accuracy by measuring the product's dimensions at the last possible moment before it is cut (’177 Patent, col. 2:26-33).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶61). The essential elements of Claim 1 include:

  • A slicing apparatus with a product inlet region, a working region, and a transport region.
  • The working region includes a cutting region with a cutting blade and a front product abutment.
  • A contactless contour scanner housed in a self-contained sensor housing and located in the working region.
  • The scanner comprises a laser source and a camera.
  • The scanner is located "upstream or downstream of and proximate the front product abutment."
  • A control device that uses contour data from the scanner to control the product feed and obtain product slices of constant weight.

U.S. Patent No. 12,246,467 - “SLICING APPARATUS” (issued March 11, 2025)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a slicing apparatus featuring a feeding unit with a trimming cutter designed to cut off a portion of a food product along the feeding direction. The apparatus includes a "selection gap" arranged downstream of the trimming cutter, which allows the cut-off part to be sorted out and fall through before the main product proceeds to a scanning device and the primary cutting region (’467 Patent, Claim 1; Compl. ¶¶ 88-93).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶87).
  • Accused Features: The infringement allegations against the CashinSX slicer target its feeding unit, which is alleged to include a trimming cutter, a subsequent selection gap for sorting off-cuts, and a scanning device that scans the product after it passes through the selection gap (Compl. ¶¶ 88-93).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Defendant’s Formax Free Movement System ("FMS") and CashinSX Commercial Slicer ("CashinSX") (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The FMS is described as an apparatus for transporting food portions using independently controlled, "free-floating movers" that travel on a track system via electromagnetic fields (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 43, 48). The complaint includes a visual of the FMS showing a transfer device with conveyor belts loading sliced product portions onto the individual movers (Compl. ¶46, p. 12). The system is marketed as providing flexible product handling in industrial settings (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 43).
  • The CashinSX is identified as an industrial apparatus for slicing food products, such as bacon (Compl. ¶¶ 62, 88). Its functionality is alleged to include an "On-Board 3D Scanner" that creates a 3D image of the product, which is used to calculate slicing parameters to achieve accurate portion weight (Compl. ¶70, p. 25; ¶74, p. 28). The complaint also alleges the CashinSX includes a trimming cutter and a selection gap within its feeding unit to remove parts of the product before slicing (Compl. ¶¶ 89-92).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

10,737,403 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an apparatus for moving portions which each comprise at least one slice cut off from a food product The FMS is an apparatus for moving portions of food product, which each comprise at least one slice. ¶42 col. 2:2-6
a plurality of individually movable transport movers each for at least one portion The FMS comprises a plurality of "free-floating movers" or "transport movers" that can move to any point on the work surface. ¶43 col. 2:7-8
a track system for the plurality of individually movable transport movers The FMS includes a track system with arbitrarily designed tracks on which the movers are transported. ¶44 col. 2:8-10
a control device for controlling the movements of the plurality of individually movable transport movers The FMS includes a control device, such as a Beckhoff Industrial PC with TwinCAT software, for controlling the movers. ¶45 col. 2:10-12
a transfer device ... comprising a plurality of conveyor belts oriented parallel to each other The FMS includes a transfer device with multiple parallel conveyor belts for moving portions onto the movers. ¶46 col. 23:18-24
the at least one carrier comprising a plurality of rods spaced from each other ... defining a plurality of spaces ... large enough to receive one of the plurality of conveyor belts The FMS movers allegedly have carriers with a plurality of rods defining spaces large enough to receive the conveyor belts of the transfer device. ¶47 col. 23:30-34
a drive for each of the plurality of individually movable transport movers formed by the at least one rotor and by the track system which together form an electromagnetic drive The FMS uses an electromagnetic drive, where the track system's tiles generate electromagnetic fields that move the movers (rotors). ¶48 col. 2:15-19

12,162,177 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An apparatus for slicing food products The CashinSX is an apparatus for slicing food products such as bacon. ¶62 col. 1:12-14
a working region comprising: a cutting region, comprising: a cutting plane ... a cutting blade ... and a front product abutment The CashinSX includes a working region, a cutting region, a cutting plane, a cutting blade, and a front product abutment. ¶¶64-68 col. 3:1-25
a transport region between the product inlet region and the cutting region, the transport region having a product feed The CashinSX includes a transport region with a product feed that supplies the product to the cutting region on at least one track. ¶69 col. 3:1-3
a contactless contour scanner housed in a self-contained sensor housing and configured to detect ... an outer contour of the product to be sliced ... the scanning region located in the working region The CashinSX includes an "On-Board 3D Product Scanner" housed in a self-contained unit, located in the working region, to detect product contour. ¶70 col. 2:20-25
the contactless contour scanner comprising: a laser source ... and a camera The CashinSX's scanner allegedly includes a laser source for transmitting radiation and a camera for receiving it. ¶¶71-72 col. 2:60-64
wherein the contactless contour scanner is located upstream or downstream of and proximate the front product abutment The CashinSX's scanner is allegedly located proximate to the front product abutment. ¶73 col. 5:10-15
a control device configured to receive ... contour data ... and to control operation of the product feed based on the contour data to obtain product slices of constant weight The CashinSX includes a control device that uses the 3D product image from the scanner to calculate how to slice each draft for accurate portion weight. ¶74 col. 1:30-45

Identified Points of Contention

  • ’403 Patent: A central technical question may be whether the carrier surface of the accused FMS movers meets the claim limitation requiring a "plurality of rods spaced from each other and oriented parallel to each other, the plurality of rods defining a plurality of spaces, wherein each of the plurality of spaces are large enough to receive one of the plurality of conveyor belts." The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused movers possess this specific interlocking structure for interfacing with a parallel-belt conveyor, or a structurally different design.
  • ’177 Patent: The infringement analysis for the ’177 Patent raises the question of how the court will construe the locational requirement that the scanner be "proximate the front product abutment." The definition of this relative term will be critical in determining whether the placement of the "On-Board 3D Scanner" in the accused CashinSX product falls within the scope of the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’403 Patent:

  • The Term: "carrier comprising a plurality of rods ... defining a plurality of spaces ... large enough to receive one of the plurality of conveyor belts" (Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: This term defines a specific physical structure for the interface between the transfer device and the individual movers. Its construction is critical because infringement will depend on a direct structural comparison between this claimed feature and the accused FMS mover design.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's general description focuses on the overall system of individual movers replacing a conveyor belt, which may support an argument that the specific carrier structure should be interpreted functionally as any means of reliably transferring portions from a conveyor.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 34 and the corresponding description detail a specific embodiment of a rake-like carrier (29) with rods (83) designed to interleave with the narrow conveyor belts (88) of a transfer device, resembling a "finger belt" system (’403 Patent, col. 23:18-34). This specific disclosure could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to such rake- or fork-like structures.

For the ’177 Patent:

  • The Term: "proximate the front product abutment" (Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: The invention's stated advantage over the prior art is placing the scanner close to the cutting region to improve accuracy. The meaning of "proximate" is therefore central to defining the patent's scope and assessing infringement by the CashinSX slicer.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s objective is to solve the problem of product deformation during a long transport path from an external scanner (’177 Patent, col. 2:10-19). This purpose may support a construction where any scanner location within the slicer's working region that substantially mitigates this problem is considered "proximate."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification describes a possible spacing of the compact sensor from the front abutment plane as "approximately 5 to 20 mm" (’177 Patent, col. 5:16-19). This specific numerical range, along with diagrams like Figure 1 showing the sensor (23) immediately adjacent to the abutment (16), could support a much narrower definition of "proximate."

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For all three asserted patents, the complaint alleges that the Defendant induces infringement by providing customers and end-users with "instructive materials, technical support, and information concerning the operation and use" of the Accused Products through websites, videos, and other marketing materials (Compl. ¶¶ 51, 77, 96).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegations are based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. For the ’403 Patent, the complaint alleges Defendant cited the patent’s German parent during its own prosecution activities starting in 2021 (Compl. ¶18). For the ’177 Patent, the complaint alleges Defendant cited the patent's U.S. application publication during its own prosecution in February 2023 (Compl. ¶75). For the ’467 Patent, the allegation is based on general knowledge of Plaintiff's products and business, as well as knowledge from the filing of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 99).

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

  • A central issue for the ’403 patent will be one of structural correspondence: does the carrier surface of the accused FMS movers possess the specific "plurality of rods defining...spaces" structure designed to interleave with a parallel-belt conveyor, as recited in Claim 1, or is it a functionally similar but structurally distinct design that falls outside the claim's literal scope?
  • A key question for the ’177 patent will be one of definitional scope: how will the term "proximate," which dictates the scanner's location relative to the front product abutment, be construed in light of the patent’s specification, and does the physical placement of the scanner on the accused CashinSX slicer meet that definition?
  • The case will also present an evidentiary question regarding willfulness: can the Plaintiff demonstrate that the Defendant's alleged citation of the asserted patents' foreign counterparts or application publications during its own patent prosecution establishes pre-suit knowledge sufficient to make its continued infringement objectively reckless?