DCT

1:26-cv-00051

Accelerant Twister LLC v. Marjo LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00051, D. Del., 01/16/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants conducting business and being subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs, manufacturers of automated cannabis processing machines, seek a declaratory judgment that their products do not infringe a patent held by Defendants related to automated cone-twisting technology.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns automated machinery for the mass production of smokable cannabis or hemp products, a field of growing importance with the legalization of such products in various jurisdictions.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes a complex history between the parties, including a prior licensing agreement that terminated in 2022 and a pending trade secret misappropriation lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. This declaratory judgment action was filed after the patent-in-suit issued in 2024 and Defendants allegedly made statements in the Chancery action asserting that Plaintiffs' products utilize the patented technology.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-07-23 ’627 Patent Priority Date
2020-02-02 Start of license agreement between Twister and Marjo
2022-11-17 Termination of license agreement between Twister and Marjo
2022-10-17 Prior federal action (Case No. 22-cv-1366) filed in D. Del.
2023-08-18 Prior federal action dismissed without prejudice
2023-08-29 Delaware Chancery Action filed
2024-03-26 ’627 Patent Issued
2025-09-17 Deposition of Defendant Sullivan
2025-11-03 Defendants served expert report in Chancery Action asserting use of patented mechanism
2025-12-09 Second deposition of Defendant Sullivan
2026-01-07 Motion hearing in Chancery Action
2026-01-16 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,937,627 - *Cone Loading, Weighing, Filling, and Twisting Apparatus and Method for Mass Production of Smokable Cannabis or Hemp Products*

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,937,627, "Cone Loading, Weighing, Filling, and Twisting Apparatus and Method for Mass Production of Smokable Cannabis or Hemp Products," issued March 26, 2024.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional manufacturing of smokable cannabis products as a labor-intensive, manual process leading to high costs and a lack of uniformity in weight and composition (’627 Patent, col. 1:50-57). Mechanizing the final "twisting" step is particularly challenging, as the fragile paper cones can tear if the twisting torque is too high, or leak fine powder if the torque is too low (’627 Patent, col. 2:36-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a fully automated apparatus for mass production, featuring stations for loading cones, weighing and filling them with biomass, and twisting the open end to seal the product (’627 Patent, Abstract). A central aspect of the solution is a cone twisting mechanism with a novel gripper structure that utilizes precise controls to apply a "perfect twist" without damaging the cone (’627 Patent, col. 3:11-20). This control can be achieved through software-controlled motors or, as an alternative, an "adjustable magnetic slip clutch" that slips at a desired torque (’627 Patent, col. 3:62-67).
  • Technical Importance: The described technology aims to enable reliable mass production of cannabis products with consistent weight and quality, addressing a key need in a market subject to strict legal and regulatory controls (’627 Patent, col. 2:8-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement as to all claims of the ’627 Patent, identifying Claim 1 as the sole independent claim (Compl. ¶26).
  • Essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
    • An apparatus for mass production of a smokable product.
    • At least one holder device for holding a paper cone.
    • A first station for filling the cone with powdered biomass.
    • A second station with a twisting mechanism for closing the open end of the cone.
    • The twisting mechanism includes a plurality of jaws to grip the cone, a motor for rotation, and a linkage mechanism to open and close the jaws.
    • A "force-limiting device" that limits the twisting force to prevent tearing.
    • The force-limiting device includes a "magnetic slip clutch included in a drive train of the twisting mechanism between the twisting mechanism motor and the plurality of jaws."
  • The complaint notes that all other claims (2-29) depend from Claim 1 (Compl. ¶26).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Plaintiffs' "PRO 2" and "PRO 4" automated cannabis "cone-rolling" machines (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused instrumentalities as machines for manufacturing and leasing in the automated cannabis cone-rolling business (Compl. ¶2). The complaint does not provide technical details on the specific operation of the PRO 2 and PRO 4 machines, focusing instead on what they allegedly lack. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The analysis below summarizes the central basis for this request as articulated in the complaint.

’627 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
...a force-limiting device that limits a twisting force applied by the twisting mechanism to the open end of the paper cone, to prevent tearing of the paper cone... The complaint does not contest that the accused products may have a force-limiting function but focuses on the specific mechanism recited in the claim. ¶25 col. 17:32-37
...said force-limiting device including a magnetic slip clutch included in a drive train of the twisting mechanism between the twisting mechanism motor and the plurality of jaws... Plaintiff alleges that the PRO 2 and PRO 4 machines "do not include the required 'magnetic slip clutch.'" ¶25 col. 17:37-42

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The dispute as framed by the complaint centers on a single claim limitation. A primary legal question will be the proper construction of the term "magnetic slip clutch."
  • Technical Questions: A central factual question for the litigation will be what specific torque-limiting mechanism, if any, is used in the accused PRO 2 and PRO 4 machines. The complaint does not provide this information, creating a direct factual dispute over whether the mechanism used in the accused products meets the "magnetic slip clutch" limitation, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "magnetic slip clutch"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the sole basis for the non-infringement argument presented in the complaint (Compl. ¶25). The outcome of the case, as currently framed, may depend entirely on whether the accused products are found to contain a "magnetic slip clutch" as that term is construed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the overall goal as providing a "perfect twist" and mentions multiple ways to achieve this, including software-controlled stepper motors or a servo motor (’627 Patent, col. 3:11-20). The specification introduces the magnetic slip clutch as an "alternative" method, stating "alternatively, an adjustable magnetic slip clutch may be allowed to slip at the desired torque" (’627 Patent, col. 3:62-64). A party could argue this context suggests the specific mechanism is just one example of a broader inventive concept of torque limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is specific, reciting not just a generic "force-limiting device," but explicitly one "including a magnetic slip clutch." The specification also describes a specific embodiment where "an adjustable magnetic slip clutch 152, 153 is added between the rotary twisting motor 152 and the rotating base plate 72" (’627 Patent, col. 11:51-54). A party could argue this specificity in both the claim and the written description requires the presence of a component that operates using the principles of a magnetic slip clutch, rather than a different type of torque-limiting mechanism.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: Plaintiffs seek a declaration of non-infringement under all theories, including indirect infringement (contributory or by inducement), but the complaint does not allege specific facts relating to these theories beyond a general denial of infringement (Compl. ¶28).

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

  1. Claim Construction and Scope: The central issue will be the construction of the claim term "magnetic slip clutch." The case may turn on whether this term is interpreted narrowly to mean a specific type of mechanical component or more broadly to cover other technical means of achieving the same torque-limiting function.
  2. Evidentiary and Technical Fact-Finding: A key question for discovery will be the precise technical nature of the twisting and torque-limiting mechanisms within the accused PRO 2 and PRO 4 products. The complaint's assertion that the products lack a "magnetic slip clutch" will need to be tested against the technical reality of how the machines operate.