DCT
3:22-cv-00076
Nuhn Industries Ltd v. Bazooka Farmstar LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Nuhn Industries Ltd. (Ontario, Canada)
- Defendant: Bazooka Farmstar, LLC (Iowa)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fredrikson & Byron P.A.; Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C.
- Case Identification: 3:22-cv-00076, S.D. Iowa, 01/03/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of Iowa because Defendant is an Iowa limited liability company that resides in, maintains its principal place of business in, and has a regular and established place of business within the district. The complaint further alleges that the acts of infringement occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Wolverine Agitation Boat infringes two patents related to amphibious pumping vehicles for agitating agricultural lagoons.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns specialized, self-propelled amphibious vehicles designed to operate on land and in large liquid manure lagoons to mix the contents, a critical process in modern, large-scale animal husbandry.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was notified of its alleged infringement of the ’835 Patent on October 28, 2022. The front pages of both patents-in-suit indicate that a related parent patent, U.S. Pat. No. 10,974,557, was the subject of a request for ex-parte re-examination, which was granted on September 19, 2022. The outcome of that proceeding, if concluded, is not mentioned in the complaint but may inform future validity disputes.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-08-19 | Priority Date for ’835 and ’708 Patents |
| 2021-Early | Defendant allegedly begins marketing the Wolverine Agitation Boat |
| 2022-10-28 | Defendant allegedly notified of ’835 Patent infringement |
| 2022-11-08 | U.S. Patent No. 11,491,835 Issued |
| 2023-01-03 | U.S. Patent No. 11,541,708 Issued |
| 2023-01-03 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,491,835 - "Amphibious Pumping Vehicle"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,491,835, issued November 8, 2022.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of agitating large manure lagoons where conventional tractor-powered pumps at the lagoon's edge are ineffective, and prior amphibious agitators were prone to getting stuck in mud, nosediving into the liquid, or required cumbersome trailer launching (Compl. ¶¶16-18; ’835 Patent, col. 1:31-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-propelled amphibious vehicle that can drive on land and then enter a lagoon to float. It features ground-engaging propulsion (e.g., wheels) that can be raised out of the way when floating, and a separate pumping system ("liquid manure mover") for agitation ('835 Patent, col. 2:55-61). The vehicle is operated by a wireless remote control, giving an operator control over both its land-based movement and its position and agitation functions while floating ('835 Patent, col. 4:31-40).
- Technical Importance: This design provides a comprehensive solution for managing large lagoons, allowing an operator to safely and efficiently mix the entire contents without the risks and limitations of prior art methods (Compl. ¶19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶33).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
- A floatable vehicle body
- A ground engaging propulsion structure with elements powered by a hydraulic motor
- A hydraulically powered liquid manure mover that is separate from the propulsion structure and positioned within the manure when floating
- A power source configured to power both the propulsion structure and the liquid manure mover
- A wireless remote control configured to control the propulsion structure, the flow of manure, and the vehicle's speed and direction on both land and water
U.S. Patent No. 11,541,708 - "Amphibious Pumping Vehicle"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,541,708, issued January 3, 2023.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Like its related ’835 patent, the ’708 Patent addresses the operational difficulties and safety concerns of agitating the entire volume of a large manure lagoon, which prior systems could not effectively or safely accomplish (Compl. ¶¶16-18; ’708 Patent, col. 1:33-52).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an amphibious vehicle with a wireless remote control for operation on land and water. The claims of the ’708 Patent focus on the configuration of the pumping mechanism, specifying a liquid manure pump with an impeller and a "bottom fluid inlet configured to be immersed in the liquid manure when the vehicle is floating" ('708 Patent, Claim 1). This immersion obviates the need for priming the pump, a common failure point when pumping liquids containing solids ('708 Patent, col. 7:34-40).
- Technical Importance: By designing a pump for immersion, the invention improves reliability and simplifies operation compared to systems requiring priming (Compl. ¶19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶46).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
- A floatable vehicle body
- A ground engaging propulsion structure
- A power source to move the vehicle on land and water
- A wireless remote control for the power source and for vehicle speed/direction on land and water
- An impeller within a liquid manure pump, where the pump has a housing and a bottom fluid inlet configured for immersion, allowing the impeller to draw manure through the inlet
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Wolverine Series Agitation Boat" (Compl. ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Wolverine boat as a "floating vehicle" equipped with "four 'large diameter, aggressive tires [that] make climbing out of steep banks effortless,'" suggesting it is amphibious (Compl. ¶23). A photograph in the complaint shows the accused vehicle on what appears to be a muddy bank (Compl. p. 7, top image). It is further alleged to include a "hydraulically powered liquid manure mover" and to be "controllable by a remote control" (Compl. ¶¶24-25). A supporting image depicts the mover submerged in a lagoon, while another shows an operator holding a remote-control unit (Compl. p. 7, middle image; p. 8, top image). The complaint alleges that the commercial success of Plaintiff's own embodiment of the patents-in-suit led to "copying by Defendant" (Compl. ¶19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’835 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a floatable vehicle body | The accused product is marketed as a "floating vehicle" that can be driven into a manure lagoon. | ¶23 | col. 2:62-63 |
| a ground engaging propulsion structure comprising a plurality of ground engaging elements powered by a hydraulic motor | The accused vehicle has four "large diameter, aggressive tires" for traversing steep banks. | ¶23 | col. 5:22-25 |
| a hydraulically powered liquid manure mover separate from the ground engaging propulsion structure... | The accused vehicle "includes a hydraulically powered liquid manure mover." | ¶24 | col. 8:41-47 |
| a power source ... configured to provide power to both the ground engaging propulsion structure and the liquid manure mover | The complaint alleges the vehicle has both a hydraulically powered propulsion system and a hydraulically powered manure mover, from which the presence of a power source configured to power both may be inferred. | ¶¶23-24 | col. 7:8-19 |
| a wireless remote control configured to enable an operator ... to: (1) control the ground engaging propulsion structure; (2) control a flow of liquid manure...; (3) control...speed and direction...when...ground engaging; and, (4) control...speed and direction...when...floating | The accused vehicle is advertised as being "controllable by a remote control." | ¶25 | col. 8:50-59 |
’708 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a floatable vehicle body | The accused product is marketed as a "floating vehicle." | ¶23 | col. 2:1-3 |
| a ground engaging propulsion structure | The accused product has "large diameter, aggressive tires" for land travel. | ¶23 | col. 2:5-8 |
| a wireless remote control configured to enable an operator remote from the vehicle to... control... speed and direction of the vehicle when... ground engaging; and... when... floating | The accused product is "controllable by a remote control." | ¶25 | col. 8:3-9 |
| an impeller in a liquid manure pump, the liquid manure pump comprising a bottom fluid inlet configured to be immersed in the liquid manure when the vehicle is floating... | The accused product includes a "liquid manure mover." A photograph depicts this mover operating while submerged in a lagoon. | ¶24 | col. 7:34-40 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: For the '835 patent, the complaint alleges the accused product is "controllable by a remote control," but does not specify whether that control extends to all four distinct functions enumerated in Claim 1. The evidence at trial will need to establish that the remote controls the propulsion structure, manure flow, and speed/direction in both land and water modes.
- Scope Questions: For the '835 patent, a potential dispute may arise over the term "separate from." The analysis will question whether the accused product's "liquid manure mover" and its "ground engaging propulsion structure" are configured in a way that meets the "separate" limitation as it is construed by the court.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Claim Term: "liquid manure mover" (’835 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core agitation and pumping apparatus. Its construction is critical because if defined narrowly, it might not read on the specific pumping mechanism of the accused Wolverine boat. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's allegation that the accused product "includes a hydraulically powered liquid manure mover" is conclusory (Compl. ¶24).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term "fluid pump" generally in the summary and detailed description, suggesting "liquid manure mover" could be interpreted broadly to cover various types of pumps used for this purpose ('835 Patent, col. 2:58).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific embodiment of the pump, showing a housing with three tangential fluid outlets and an impeller ('835 Patent, FIG. 8; col. 6:41-43). A party could argue that "liquid manure mover" should be limited to a structure possessing these disclosed features.
Claim Term: "separate from" (’835 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term dictates the required degree of structural and/or functional independence between the vehicle's land-propulsion system and its water-agitation system. Infringement of Claim 1 hinges on the accused product meeting this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent figures depict the ground engaging wheels (3, 4) and the fluid pump (9) as physically distinct components mounted on the vehicle body (1), which may support a construction where "separate" means not being a single, integrated mechanical unit ('835 Patent, FIG. 1).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a power source (7) connected via a mechanical drive (8) to both a hydraulic pump (10) for the wheels and the fluid pump (9) ('835 Patent, col. 6:35-40). A party could argue that "separate" implies a higher degree of isolation, and that this shared power linkage means the systems are not truly separate under a narrower definition.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint makes general allegations of induced and contributory infringement and references 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) in its prayer for relief (Compl. ¶8; Prayer ¶(a)). However, it does not plead specific facts to support a claim for indirect infringement, such as alleging that Defendant's manuals or marketing materials instruct customers to use the Wolverine boat in an infringing manner.
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Defendant has been aware of its infringement of the '835 Patent "since at least October 28, 2022," the date Plaintiff allegedly provided notice via email (Compl. ¶37). The willfulness claim is based on Defendant's alleged failure to cease its infringing activities after receiving this notice (Compl. ¶38).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: will the term "liquid manure mover" be given its plain and ordinary meaning, or will its scope be narrowed by the specific pump embodiments detailed in the patent's specification? The outcome of this Markman dispute will be critical to the infringement analysis.
- A second central question will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: does the complaint's general allegation of "remote control" suffice, or will Plaintiff need to produce specific evidence showing that the accused Wolverine boat's remote is configured to control all four distinct vehicle functions as required by Claim 1 of the ’835 patent?
- Finally, the case may turn on a question of technical architecture: does the physical and functional arrangement of the propulsion and pumping systems in the accused vehicle satisfy the "separate from" limitation in Claim 1 of the ’835 patent, or are the systems integrated in a manner that places the design outside the claim's scope?