DCT

8:23-cv-02882

Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc. v. Enza Holding B.V.

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:23-cv-02882, M.D. Fla., 12/15/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant Enza Zaden USA, Inc. having a regular and established place of business in the district and committing alleged acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s pepper varieties infringe a patent directed to a specific hybrid pepper plant, its parent lines, and related methods, which possess genetic resistance to bacterial leaf spot disease.
  • Technical Context: The technology lies in agricultural plant breeding, specifically the development of hybrid pepper varieties that incorporate genetic resistance to prevalent pathogens to increase crop viability and yield.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant on January 19, 2022, providing notice of the alleged infringement of the patent and a related Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Certificate. This pre-suit notification may be relevant to the allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-03-24 ’711 Patent Application Filing Date
2016-04-12 U.S. Patent No. 9,307,711 Issued
2016-06-03 PVP Certificate No. 201500329 Issued
2022-01-19 Plaintiff sends pre-suit notification letter to Defendant
2023-12-15 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,307,711 - "Pepper Hybrid SV4844PB"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9307711, "Pepper Hybrid SV4844PB," issued April 12, 2016.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses bacterial leaf spot in pepper plants, a disease caused by the bacterium Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria (Xcv). The patent background describes this disease as "the most destructive and prevalent disease affecting pepper plants in the Eastern United States," for which there was no known treatment, often necessitating crop destruction. (’711 Patent, col. 4:13-14, col. 5:6-10; Compl. ¶13).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a specific pepper hybrid designated SV4844PB, its parent inbred lines (SBR-99-1326 and SBR-E711417), and seeds and plants derived therefrom. The key innovation is that these plants possess genetic resistance to ten different races of bacterial leaf spot (Xcv races 0-10), conferring a significant protective advantage. (’711 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:1-4). The specification details the multi-year pedigree selection process used to create the parent lines and combine their desirable traits, including disease resistance and fruit characteristics. (’711 Patent, col. 5:16 - col. 8:12).
  • Technical Importance: The development of plants with broad-spectrum genetic resistance to multiple races of a pathogen provides a durable and economically critical tool for agriculture, reducing crop loss and the need for chemical treatments. (’711 Patent, col. 5:6-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 26, 33, and 34, along with several dependent claims. (Compl. ¶22).
  • Independent Claim 1, a composition claim, recites:
    • A pepper plant
    • comprising at least a first set of the chromosomes of pepper line SBR-99-1326 or pepper line SBR-E711417
    • a sample of seed of said lines having been deposited under ATCC Accession Number PTA-120613 and ATCC Accession Number PTA-121060, respectively.
  • The complaint also asserts claims to methods of producing pepper seeds (Claim 26), pepper plants (Claim 33), and pepper fruit (Claim 34) derived from the patented lines.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s pepper varieties named Prodigy, Provider, Regulator, and Placepack. (Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that these accused pepper varieties were developed through a breeding program that "started with Seminis’ SV4844PB hybrid pepper" and are therefore "direct and recent derivations" of it. (Compl. ¶18, 25).
  • The key technical functionality is alleged to be resistance to bacterial leaf spot. The complaint states that Defendant markets the accused peppers in seed catalogs with descriptions of disease resistance to "Xcv:1–10," which Plaintiff contends "embodies the invention described in the ’711 Patent." (Compl. ¶25).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’711 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A pepper plant comprising at least a first set of the chromosomes of pepper line SBR-99-1326 or pepper line SBR-E711417... The accused pepper varieties (Prodigy, Provider, Regulator, and Placepack) are alleged to be "direct and recent derivations" developed from Plaintiff's patented SV4844PB hybrid, which is itself a product of crossing the two claimed parent lines. ¶18, ¶25 col. 33:4-9
...a sample of seed of said lines having been deposited under ATCC Accession Number PTA-120613 and ATCC Accession Number PTA-121060, respectively. The complaint bases its infringement theory on the alleged use of Plaintiff's deposited genetic material (via the SV4844PB hybrid) to create the accused varieties. ¶18, ¶23 col. 33:6-9
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Question: The central dispute appears to be factual and evidentiary. A key question for the court will be: can Plaintiff prove that Defendant's accused pepper varieties are, in fact, derived from Plaintiff's patented plant lines? The complaint makes this allegation "on information and belief," which suggests that discovery, including breeding records and genetic testing, will be required to substantiate the claim. (Compl. ¶18).
    • Technical Question: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused varieties contain the claimed genetic material? The primary technical link alleged is that Defendant's marketing materials claim resistance to "Xcv:1-10." (Compl. ¶25). This allegation suggests the possibility that the accused varieties contain the same genetic basis for resistance as the patented lines, which may support the theory of derivation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a pepper plant comprising at least a first set of the chromosomes of pepper line SBR-99-1326 or pepper line SBR-E711417"
  • Context and Importance: The resolution of this case will likely depend less on a traditional claim construction dispute over the meaning of a word and more on the factual question of whether the accused plants have the genetic heritage required by this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its application requires extrinsic evidence, such as DNA analysis, to determine if an accused plant's genome is a "derivation" containing the claimed chromosomes.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of "comprising" and "at least a first set" suggests an open-ended scope. This language could be interpreted to cover any plant that has inherited one haploid set of chromosomes from either of the parent lines, regardless of how many subsequent generations or crosses have occurred. The patent notes that its methods can be used for the "development of new pepper varieties." (’711 Patent, col. 23:59-60).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim explicitly ties the parent lines to physical deposits with the ATCC. (’711 Patent, col. 33:6-9). A party could argue that the scope should be limited to plants that not only contain the chromosomes but also express the key physiological and morphological characteristics described in extensive detail for the deposited lines in the patent's specification. (’711 Patent, Tables 2-3).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under Count II. The theory is that Defendant encourages infringement by third-party growers by "knowingly selling seeds of Enza's Infringing Peppers to growers, which would plant, breed, [and] produce" infringing plants. (Compl. ¶31). The complaint alleges the requisite intent is shown by Defendant's marketing of the specific "Xcv:1-10" resistance trait and its alleged knowledge of the ’711 patent from industry participation and a pre-suit notification letter. (Compl. ¶31).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's "pre-suit knowledge of the '711 Patent through direct or indirect communications with Seminis and/or as a result of its participation in the pepper plant industry." (Compl. ¶25). The complaint specifically cites the January 19, 2022 letter as establishing knowledge. (Compl. ¶25).

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

  • A central evidentiary question will be one of genetic provenance: can Plaintiff produce definitive evidence, likely through genetic analysis or discovery of breeding records, to prove its allegation that Defendant’s accused pepper varieties were developed using Plaintiff’s patented plant material?
  • A key legal and factual question will be one of infringement scope: what is the threshold for infringement under a claim for a plant "comprising at least a first set of the chromosomes" of a deposited line? The case may turn on whether proof of any genetic inheritance from the parent lines is sufficient, or if Plaintiff must show that the accused plants contain the specific genetic loci responsible for the patented traits, such as broad-spectrum Xcv resistance.