DCT
1:25-cv-23645
TJ Biotech LLC v. Agrosource Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: TJ BioTech LLC (South Dakota)
- Defendant: AgroSource, Inc. (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-23645, S.D. Fla., 08/13/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of Florida because Defendant AgroSource, Inc. has its principal place of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s agricultural product for treating citrus tree disease infringes a patent covering methods for generating and applying an acidified antibiotic solution, and further alleges that Defendant has engaged in false advertising regarding its product's quality.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses Citrus Greening Disease (HLB), a devastating bacterial infection in citrus trees, by systemically injecting a highly acidified antibiotic solution into the tree's vascular system.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of its pending patent application and provisional rights on at least two occasions prior to the patent’s issuance, which may be relevant to the allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-11-01 | Priority Date for ’956 Patent (Application Filing) |
| 2022-10-28 | Plaintiff's ReMedium TI® receives Special Local Needs approval |
| 2023-01-XX | Plaintiff's ReMedium TI® commercially launched |
| 2023-01-30 | Defendant's Rectify™ label receives regulatory approval |
| 2023-02-XX | Defendant begins selling Rectify™ |
| 2023-02-09 | Plaintiff notifies Defendant of pending patent application |
| 2023-03-08 | Defendant issues Tech Bulletin regarding Rectify™ performance |
| 2023-05-31 | Plaintiff notifies Defendant of the published patent application |
| 2023-12-22 | Defendant issues press release regarding Rectify™ quality |
| 2024-08-XX | Defendant advertises Rectify™ at Citrus & Specialty Crop Expo |
| 2025-08-12 | U.S. Patent No. 12,382,956 issues |
| 2025-08-13 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,382,956 - Antimicrobial Compositions and Methods for Treating Plant Diseases
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,382,956, "Antimicrobial Compositions and Methods for Treating Plant Diseases," issued August 12, 2025. (Compl. ¶22).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of treating vascular-colonizing bacterial diseases in perennial plants, such as Citrus Greening Disease (HLB), where common control practices like foliar sprays suffer from poor penetration into the plant's vascular tissue. (’956 Patent, col. 1:56-2:5). Prior art methods were found to be lacking an effective antibiotic composition for systemic delivery. (’956 Patent, col. 2:41-47).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for creating and using a highly acidic antibiotic solution. An antibiotic such as oxytetracycline is dissolved in a solvent (e.g., water) and then an acid is added to lower the solution's pH to a range of 1.5 to less than 4.0. (’956 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:55-60). This acidified solution is then delivered systemically, for example by injection into the tree trunk, allowing the antibiotic to effectively treat the bacterial infection within the plant's vascular system. (’956 Patent, col. 4:1-5).
- Technical Importance: The invention provided a method for effective systemic treatment of HLB, a disease that has devastated the citrus industry and for which previous treatments were largely unsuccessful. (Compl. ¶11-15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 3. (Compl. ¶31-32, 35).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following essential elements:
- adding an antibiotic (oxytetracycline or streptomycin) to a solvent (water) to achieve a concentration of 500 to 25,000 ppm;
- titrating the solution with an inorganic acid (hydrochloric acid) to achieve a pH in the range of 1.8-2.5; and
- delivering the resulting solution systemically to a plant.
- Independent Claim 3 recites a similar method with the following essential elements:
- adding an antibiotic including oxytetracycline to a solvent;
- titrating with an acid to achieve a pH from 1.5 to less than 4.0; and
- delivering the solution systemically by drilling a hole into the tree/vine and injecting the solution into its vascular network.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims, specifically noting that users of the accused product infringe claims 2 and 4. (Compl. ¶31, 35).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Defendant’s Rectify™ product and the method of its use as directed by its labeling and marketing materials. (Compl. ¶3, 27).
Functionality and Market Context
- Rectify™ is sold as a "systemic injectable bactericide" for controlling HLB in citrus trees. (Compl. ¶33). Its label provides "Mixing Directions" that instruct users to combine the product with water and muriatic acid (hydrochloric acid) to create a solution for injection. (Compl. ¶34). These instructions allegedly direct users to create a solution with a pH of 1.8 to 2.0 and antibiotic concentrations (1,100 ppm, 5,500 ppm, or 11,000 ppm) that fall within the ranges claimed in the ’956 Patent. (Compl. ¶34).
- The complaint alleges that Rectify™ is marketed as a "me too" product to Plaintiff’s own ReMedium TI® product and was introduced to the market shortly after Plaintiff's product. (Compl. ¶27-28). The complaint includes a photograph from a trade show where Defendant advertised Rectify™ with a large sign reading "Pharmaceutical Grade." (Compl. p. 12).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’956 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| adding an antibiotic to a solvent in an amount sufficient to generate a first solution having a concentration of the antibiotic sufficient to treat the bacterial infection in the plant | The Rectify™ label instructs users to add a calculated amount of the product, which contains the antibiotic OTC, to water to achieve concentrations of 1,100, 5,500, or 11,000 ppm. | ¶33-34 | col. 5:18-21 |
| titrating the first solution using an acid to generate a second solution having a pH of from 1.5 to less than 4.0 | The label instructs users to add muriatic acid to buffer the solution to a pH range of 1.8 to 2.0, which is within the claimed range. | ¶34 | col. 5:21-25 |
| delivering the second solution systemically to a plant | The label's "Injection Directions" instruct users to deliver the formulated solution to citrus trees via trunk injection. | ¶35 | col. 5:26-27 |
| wherein the solvent comprises water | The "Mixing Directions" on the label require the user to use water as the solvent. | ¶34 | col. 5:28-29 |
| the acid comprises an inorganic acid titrated into the first solution in an amount sufficient to generate the second solution having a pH of in a range of 1.8-2.5 | The label directs the use of muriatic acid (hydrochloric acid, an inorganic acid) to achieve a pH of 1.8 to 2.0. | ¶34 | col. 5:30-33 |
| the antibiotic comprises oxytetracycline or streptomycin | The Rectify™ label discloses that the product includes the antibiotic OTC (oxytetracycline). | ¶33 | col. 5:34-35 |
| the antibiotic has a concentration of 500 to 25,000 parts per million | The label's recommended concentrations of 1,100 ppm, 5,500 ppm, and 11,000 ppm fall within the claimed range. | ¶34 | col. 5:36-38 |
| and the inorganic acid comprises hydrochloric acid | The label instructs the use of muriatic acid, which is the common name for hydrochloric acid. | ¶34 | col. 5:39-40 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The asserted claims are directed to a method, while the defendant sells a product. The central infringement questions will therefore concern indirect infringement (inducement and contributory). The viability of the direct infringement claim against AgroSource itself will depend on evidence of its "internal testing, demonstration, and/or field use." (Compl. ¶59).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the instructions on the Rectify™ label direct users to perform every step of the claimed method. A potential factual question for the court could be whether the term "buffer," as used on the accused label, is technically synonymous with the claim term "titrating." (Compl. ¶34).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "titrating"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the chemical preparation step of the claimed method. Defendant’s product label allegedly instructs users to "buffer" the solution. (Compl. ¶34). Practitioners may focus on this term because the defense could argue that the common agricultural practice of "buffering" a solution is distinct from the more precise chemical process of "titrating." The outcome of this construction could determine whether the actions of end-users fall within the literal scope of the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term in the context of adjusting pH: "titrating the first solution using an acid to generate a second solution having a pH of from 1.5 to less than 4.0." (’956 Patent, col. 5:21-25). This language may support an interpretation where "titrating" simply means adding an acid to achieve a target pH range, which would encompass the "buffering" instruction.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that in a chemical context, "titrating" implies a specific procedure to determine an unknown concentration, not merely to adjust pH. However, the claim language itself ties the titration step directly to the outcome of achieving a specific pH range, not to determining a concentration, which may weaken a narrower interpretation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that AgroSource, with knowledge of the patent, provides the Rectify™ label with instructions that guide users to perform the patented method. (Compl. ¶36, 65-66). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that Rectify™ is especially adapted for this infringing use and is not a staple article of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses. (Compl. ¶37, 71).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of Plaintiff’s patent rights. The complaint cites pre-suit letters sent to AgroSource regarding the pending patent application, which allegedly put AgroSource on notice before the patent issued. (Compl. ¶38-39). The complaint alleges that AgroSource continued its infringing activities even after the patent granted. (Compl. ¶61).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of indirect liability: As the asserted claims are for a method performed by end-users, the case will likely turn on evidence of inducement and contributory infringement. The court will need to determine if AgroSource's product label and marketing materials demonstrate a specific intent to cause infringement and whether the Rectify™ product has any substantial non-infringing uses.
- A key evidentiary question will concern willfulness and damages: The complaint’s allegations of pre-suit notice and direct copying (Compl. ¶21, 38) raise a significant question of whether AgroSource’s conduct was willful. The outcome will heavily influence the potential for enhanced damages.
- A parallel question, with implications for both the patent and Lanham Act claims, will be one of commercial conduct: The court will examine whether AgroSource's alleged "Pharmaceutical Grade" advertising was literally false and material in persuading customers to purchase its product over the plaintiff's, which could be relevant to establishing lost profits and the commercial context of the infringement. (Compl. ¶47, 53).