DCT

9:25-cv-81008

TJ Biotech LLC v. Agrosource Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 9:25-cv-81008, S.D. Fla., 08/13/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of Florida because Defendant AgroSource maintains its principal place of business in the district and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Rectify™ agricultural product, and its method of use, infringes a patent related to acidified antibiotic compositions for treating plant diseases.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses treatments for Citrus Greening Disease (HLB), a bacterial infection that has devastated the citrus industry by reducing crop yield and killing trees.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent letters to Defendant informing it of the pending patent application and its intent to enforce its rights, beginning at least six months before the patent issued. This allegation of pre-suit notice may be central to Plaintiff's claim for willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2021-11-01 '956 Patent Application Filing Date
2023-01-XX Plaintiff's ReMedium TI® launched
2023-01-30 Defendant's Rectify™ label approved
2023-02-XX Defendant's Rectify™ launched
2023-02-09 Plaintiff alleges it first notified Defendant of pending patent application
2023-05-31 Plaintiff alleges it sent a subsequent letter to Defendant regarding the application
2025-08-12 U.S. Patent No. 12,382,956 Issued
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 (the "'956 Patent"). (Compl. ¶22).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty of controlling vascular-colonizing bacterial diseases in perennial plants, such as Citrus Greening Disease (HLB). It notes that common control methods, like foliar (leaf spray) applications of antimicrobials, suffer from poor penetration into the plant's vascular tissue where the bacteria reside. (’956 Patent, col. 1:56-col. 2:2).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for creating and using an acidified antibiotic solution designed for systemic delivery into a plant's vascular system. The method involves dissolving an antibiotic (such as oxytetracycline) in a solvent (such as water) and then adding an acid to lower the solution's pH to a range of 1.5 to less than 4.0, which is then injected into the plant trunk. (’956 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:9-19). The patent asserts that this low-pH formulation, delivered directly into the plant's vascular network, effectively treats the infection. (’956 Patent, col. 4:1-5).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed method provided a means for effective systemic treatment of HLB, which was devastating the citrus industry, by using a low-pH formulation that contradicted prior industry beliefs that such acidity would be injurious to the trees. (Compl. ¶15, ¶19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of independent claims 1 and 3, as well as dependent claims 2 and 4. (Compl. ¶31, ¶35).
  • Independent Claim 1: The essential elements of this method claim include:
    • Adding an antibiotic (oxytetracycline or streptomycin) to a solvent (water) to create a first solution with a concentration of 500 to 25,000 parts per million.
    • Titrating the first solution with an inorganic acid (hydrochloric acid) to generate a second solution with a pH between 1.8 and 2.5.
    • Delivering the second solution systemically to a plant.
  • Independent Claim 3: This method claim recites similar steps of adding an antibiotic (oxytetracycline) and titrating with an acid to a pH of 1.5 to less than 4.0, but specifically defines the "delivering" step as:
    • Drilling a hole into the rootstock or trunk of a tree or vine.
    • Injecting the second solution into the vascular network of the tree or vine.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is Defendant AgroSource’s Rectify™ product and the method of using it according to its label instructions. (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

  • Rectify™ is described on its label as a "systemic injectable bactericide for the control of...Citrus Greening" containing the antibiotic oxytetracycline (OTC). (Compl. ¶33).
  • The complaint alleges that the product's "Mixing Directions" instruct users to combine Rectify™ with water and muriatic acid (hydrochloric acid) to create an injectable solution. (Compl. ¶34).
  • These instructions allegedly direct users to "buffer (titrate) the solution down to a pH range of 1.8 to 2.0" and achieve OTC concentrations of 1,100 ppm, 5,500 ppm, or 11,000 ppm, which is then delivered via trunk injection. (Compl. ¶34-35).
  • The complaint alleges that Rectify™ is marketed as a "me too" and "direct copying" of Plaintiff's own ReMedium TI® product. (Compl. ¶21, ¶27). A photograph from a trade show depicts Defendant's booth with a large sign advertising the accused Rectify™ product as "Pharmaceutical Grade" (Compl. p. 12), a quality claim Plaintiff disputes. (Compl. ¶49-51).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’956 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of generating an acidified antibiotic solution... comprising the steps of: adding an antibiotic to a solvent... The Rectify™ label instructs users to generate an acidified antibiotic solution by adding the Rectify™ product (containing the antibiotic OTC) to water. ¶33, ¶34 col. 4:9-13
the antibiotic comprises oxytetracycline or streptomycin; The Rectify™ product includes the antibiotic OTC. ¶33 col. 4:48-50
the antibiotic has a concentration of 500 to 25,000 parts per million; The label allegedly instructs users to achieve recommended concentrations of 1,100 ppm, 5,500 ppm, or 11,000 ppm. ¶34 col. 5:21-22
titrating the first solution using an acid to generate a second solution... The label allegedly instructs users to add muriatic acid to "buffer (titrate) the solution down to a pH range." ¶34 col. 4:13-16
the acid comprises an inorganic acid...comprises hydrochloric acid. The label allegedly directs the use of muriatic acid, which is hydrochloric acid. ¶34 col. 4:65
the acid comprises an inorganic acid titrated...to generate the second solution having a pH of in a range of 1.8-2.5; The label allegedly directs users to add muriatic acid to achieve a pH range of 1.8 to 2.0. ¶34 col. 4:61-62
delivering the second solution systemically to a plant; The label's "Injection Directions" allegedly require the user to deliver the formulated solution to citrus trees via trunk injection. ¶35 col. 4:1-3
wherein the solvent comprises water; The label's "Mixing Directions" allegedly require the user to use water as the solvent. ¶34 col. 3:40-42

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The complaint's infringement theory hinges on the meaning of the term "titrating." A potential dispute is whether the accused product's instructions to add an acid to "buffer" a solution to a target pH range meets the legal and technical definition of "titrating" as used in the claim.
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question for this method claim will be what proof exists that end-users following the Rectify™ label instructions actually and consistently perform all the claimed steps, including achieving the specific pH and concentration ranges required by the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "titrating"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines a central manipulative step of the claimed method. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused method of adding acid to achieve a target pH constitutes "titrating." Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint itself equates the accused instruction to "buffer" with the claimed step of "titrating." (Compl. ¶34).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the step as "titrating the first solution using an acid to generate a second solution having a pH of from 1.5 to less than 4.0," without providing a special definition. (’956 Patent, col. 4:13-16). A party could argue this supports a plain meaning synonymous with adjusting pH by adding acid.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: In chemistry, "titration" can imply a more precise analytical procedure to determine concentration, often involving an indicator and an equivalence point, rather than simply adjusting pH to a target range. A party could argue that the patentee, by choosing this specific term, intended to claim a more technical process than what is described on the accused product's label.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement theory is based on allegations that AgroSource's product label and instructions actively encourage and guide customers to perform the patented method. (Compl. ¶64-66). The contributory infringement theory is based on allegations that Rectify™ is especially adapted for this infringing use and is not a staple commodity with substantial non-infringing uses. (Compl. ¶70-71).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on AgroSource's purported pre-suit knowledge of the pending patent application, which Plaintiff claims to have provided via letters starting on February 9, 2023. (Compl. ¶38-39). The complaint alleges that AgroSource's continued infringing activities after the patent issued, despite this notice, constitutes "flagrant disregard" for Plaintiff's intellectual property rights. (Compl. ¶38).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the term "titrating," as used in the context of the ’956 Patent, encompass the process of adding an acid to "buffer" a solution to a target pH range, as allegedly instructed on the accused product's label, or does it require a more precise, technical chemical procedure?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of performance: since the patent claims a method, the case will depend on what evidence Plaintiff can establish to prove that end-users of the accused product actually perform all the required steps—including achieving the specific pH and concentration limitations—when mixing and applying the treatment in the field.
  • The dispute over willfulness will likely focus on the content and timing of the alleged pre-suit notice letters. The court will need to determine whether AgroSource's conduct, in light of its alleged knowledge of the pending patent, was objectively reckless, which could expose it to enhanced damages.