DCT
8:24-cv-02520
Tree Defender LLC v. Mike Hurst Citrus Service Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Tree Defender, LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: Mike Hurst Citrus Service Incorporated (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: ALLEN, DYER, DOPPELT + GILCHRIST, PA
- Case Identification: 8:24-cv-02520, M.D. Fla., 10/29/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendant's principal place of business is located within the Middle District of Florida.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s individual protective tree covers infringe two patents related to insect-resistant bags for enclosing and protecting young plants.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the urgent need to protect young citrus trees from citrus greening disease (HLB), a devastating agricultural blight spread by psyllid insects, by creating a physical barrier.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that prior to filing suit, Plaintiff sent a cease and desist letter to Defendant’s counsel regarding the patents-in-suit, to which Defendant allegedly did not respond.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-11-24 | Earliest Priority Date for ’092 and ’965 Patents |
| 2023-08-22 | U.S. Patent No. 11,730,092 Issued |
| 2024-08-13 | U.S. Patent No. 12,058,965 Issued |
| 2024-10-29 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,730,092 - "Plant Cover With Insect Resistant Bag For Enclosing A Plant" (Issued Aug. 22, 2023)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the threat of citrus greening disease (HLB), spread by the Asian citrus psyllid, as a critical problem for the citrus industry. It notes that conventional solutions like systemic insecticides can be environmentally harmful, while other physical covers can be complex to install or damage young trees by resting their weight on the foliage (’092 Patent, col. 1:22-59).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a plant cover system featuring a lightweight, kite-shaped mesh bag designed to be suspended over a young tree. The bag’s shape is maintained not by a complex internal framework, but by the rigidity of its seams and its suspension from a single, simple vertical support member, such as a stake, placed next to the plant. This design keeps the cover off the plant's delicate foliage while protecting it from pests (’092 Patent, col. 3:4-24).
- Technical Importance: The technology offers a method to physically protect vulnerable young trees from a devastating, incurable disease without requiring heavy pesticide use or complex, potentially damaging support structures (’092 Patent, col. 2:39-48).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- An enclosure made of coupled panels with a major mesh surface and seams.
- The panels define a first (upper) mesh section ending in a sealed top, and a second (lower) mesh section with a trunk receiving opening at the bottom.
- A support that extends vertically from the ground to abut the sealed top end of the enclosure.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 12,058,965 - "Plant Cover With Insect Resistant Bag For Enclosing A Plant" (Issued Aug. 13, 2024)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’092 Patent, this patent addresses the need to protect young citrus trees from HLB-carrying psyllids without resorting to environmentally harmful chemicals or installing complex, foliage-damaging cover systems (’965 Patent, col. 1:23-60).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an individual plant cover device featuring a mesh enclosure with a closed top and a trunk opening at the bottom. A key feature is a support stake that extends vertically from the ground, through the perimeters of the upper and lower mesh sections, to abut the closed top of the enclosure, thereby suspending the bag over the plant (’965 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:6-10).
- Technical Importance: This solution provides a self-supporting physical barrier against pests that is simple to deploy and avoids direct contact with the plant's growth, addressing a critical vulnerability in young trees (’965 Patent, col. 1:44-53).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- An enclosure of mesh material with a first (upper) section having a closed top end and a first perimeter, and a second (lower) section integral with the first, defining a trunk opening.
- A support comprising a stake that extends vertically through the first and second perimeters and is adjacent to a plant.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are "individual protective tree covers" ("Accused IPCs") manufactured, sold, and advertised by Defendant Mike Hurst Citrus Service Incorporated (Compl. ¶1, ¶23).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused IPCs are protective, breathable screens for young trees, comprising a "mesh cover, PVC support and cap" (Compl. ¶24). The complaint provides an advertisement for the accused product, showing a white, conical mesh bag installed over a young tree in a citrus grove (Compl. p. 7). This advertisement, for the "Citrus & Specialty Crop Expo," claims "No Spreader Needed," suggesting a simple support structure rather than a complex frame (Compl. p. 7). The complaint positions the Defendant as a "direct competitor" that markets its products to potential customers of the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶24, ¶33).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not include the preliminary claim charts referenced as Attachment 3. The following tables summarize the infringement allegations for Claim 1 of each patent based on the narrative and evidence within the complaint.
’092 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an enclosure comprising a plurality of panels coupled together to define a plant-receiving cavity therein, each of the plurality of panels comprising a major mesh surface... | The accused "mesh cover" is alleged to be an enclosure made of mesh material designed to receive a plant (Compl. ¶24). The advertisement depicts a mesh-like bag (Compl. p. 7). | ¶24, p. 7 | col. 5:1-7 |
| the plurality of panels defining a first mesh section...terminating at a sealed top end, a second mesh section...defining a bottom end...and a trunk receiving opening at the bottom end | The upper part of the accused mesh cover allegedly forms the first section with a sealed top, while the lower part forms the second section with an opening for the trunk. | ¶24, p. 7 | col. 5:10-18 |
| a support extending vertically from a ground surface to abut the sealed top end of the enclosure. | The accused "PVC support and cap" allegedly functions as the vertical support that holds up the mesh cover by abutting its top end. | ¶24, p. 7 | col. 5:19-22 |
’965 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an enclosure having mesh material to define a plant-receiving cavity...comprising a first mesh section having a closed top end...and a second mesh section...defining a trunk receiving opening | The accused "mesh cover" is alleged to be the mesh enclosure with an upper section, closed top, and lower section with a trunk opening (Compl. ¶24). The advertisement visual is consistent with this structure (Compl. p. 7). | ¶24, p. 7 | col. 5:40-54 |
| a support comprising a stake...extending vertically through the first and second perimeters and being adjacent a plant. | The accused "PVC support" is alleged to be the stake (Compl. ¶24). The visual in the advertisement is consistent with a stake placed next to the plant and extending up inside the cover, which would necessarily pass through the perimeters of the bag (Compl. p. 7). | ¶24, p. 7 | col. 5:55-62 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A central question may be whether the accused products are constructed in a way that meets all claim limitations. For the ’092 Patent, this includes whether the rigidity of the accused bag is derived from its seams as described in the patent. For the ’965 Patent, this includes whether the "PVC support" extends "through the first and second perimeters" as required by the claim. The complaint does not provide specific evidence on these structural details.
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the scope of the claims. For example, does the combination of a "PVC support and cap" meet all the functional and structural requirements of the claimed "support" that "abuts" the "sealed top end"?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "support extending vertically... to abut the sealed top end" (’092 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This limitation is the core of the invention's "frameless" design, distinguishing it from prior art that used more complex structures. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the Defendant's "PVC support and cap" (Compl. ¶24) is found to be such a support.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the support as a "rod-shaped or tubular stake," which could suggest that other simple, rod-like structures fall within the scope (’092 Patent, col. 4:15-16).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a cap on the support that "prevents the vertical support member from causing wear to the bag" (’092 Patent, col. 4:17-21). This suggests the "abutment" may require a specific functional interaction, not just incidental contact, potentially narrowing the term to support systems with such a protective feature.
The Term: "extending vertically through the first and second perimeters" (’965 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term defines the specific relationship between the support stake and the mesh enclosure. Proving infringement of the ’965 Patent will require showing the accused product's support follows this precise path. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a key structural distinction.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to specify a particular method by which the stake passes through the perimeters, which could allow for various configurations where the stake is inside the bag and extends from bottom to top.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, such as Figure 10, depict the stake as a central, internal element around which the bag is situated. A defendant might argue this term requires a structure where the perimeters are not merely pierced but are structurally related to the internal stake, potentially limiting the claim to a specific assembly method.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant encourages and facilitates infringement by its customers, such as "Wonderful Citrus and Smoak Groves, Inc.," by selling them the Accused IPCs for assembly and use in a manner that allegedly infringes the patents (Compl. ¶42-44).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the Asserted Patents. The complaint asserts this knowledge arises from a pre-suit cease and desist letter sent to Defendant's counsel, to which Defendant allegedly failed to respond while continuing its accused activities (Compl. ¶34, ¶37).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope and construction: can the term "support extending vertically... to abut the sealed top end" (’092 patent) be construed to read on the accused "PVC support and cap" assembly? Similarly, does the accused product’s support stake extend "through the first and second perimeters" as required by the ’965 patent? The resolution of these construction questions may be dispositive.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural proof: beyond the general allegations and marketing materials in the complaint, what evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the specific construction of the accused mesh bags—including their seams, shape, and interaction with the support stake—meets every element of the asserted claims?