DCT
4:25-cv-00559
Harvest Right LLC v. Blue Alpine LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Harvest Right, LLC (Utah)
- Defendant: Blue Alpine, LLC (Idaho)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Christiansen Law, PLLC
- Case Identification: 4:25-cv-00559, D. Idaho, 09/30/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Idaho because Defendant Blue Alpine is an Idaho company that has committed the alleged acts of infringement in the district, solicited business from Idaho residents, and derived financial benefit from those transactions.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s freeze dryer models infringe two patents related to specialized processes for drying materials with low water content, such as candy.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the field of freeze-drying (lyophilization), specifically adapting the technology for niche consumer and prosumer applications beyond traditional food preservation, such as processing confections.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2023-05-08 | Priority Date for ’609 and ’610 Patents |
| 2025-03-11 | U.S. Patent No. 12,245,609 Issues |
| 2025-03-11 | U.S. Patent No. 12,245,610 Issues |
| 2025-09-30 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,245,609 - "Freeze Dryers and Drying Processes for Materials with Low Water Content"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of drying materials with low water content (no more than 20 wt %) and/or high sugar content (at least 20 wt %), such as candy, for which traditional freeze-drying processes (which require freezing) are not always suitable or effective (’609 Patent, col. 1:26-33).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a modified drying process within a freeze dryer that involves a preparatory step of warming the material at or near ambient pressure before the pressure is reduced to create a vacuum for drying (’609 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:41-47). This pre-warming step is designed to enhance the characteristics of the final dried product, particularly for items like candy (’609 Patent, col. 20:50-55).
- Technical Importance: This approach adapts freeze dryer hardware for a non-traditional process that can alter and, in some cases, improve the texture of confections (e.g., making chewy candy crunchy), expanding the utility of such devices (’609 Patent, col. 19:40-45).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-25, 27-30, and 32-39 (Compl. ¶9).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A freeze dryer with a chamber, vacuum pump, cooling system, and heating system.
- An electronic controller with a processor and memory.
- Memory including instructions for a drying process.
- The process must include the steps of: (1) "warming the material in the chamber at or near ambient pressure to form a warmed material"; and (2) "reducing pressure in the chamber below ambient pressure to dry the warmed material."
U.S. Patent No. 12,245,610 - "Freeze Dryers and Drying Processes for Materials with Low Water Content"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Like its companion patent, the ’610 Patent addresses the specific technical needs for drying low-water and high-sugar content materials like candy (’610 Patent, col. 1:26-33).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "candy drying process" for a freeze dryer that involves reducing the chamber pressure to dry the material without the material being frozen first (’610 Patent, col. 46:48-52). This method bypasses the initial freezing phase that is fundamental to conventional lyophilization, treating the machine as a vacuum dryer rather than a true "freeze" dryer for these specific materials (’610 Patent, col. 1:34-40).
- Technical Importance: The solution provides a method to achieve a desired texture and state in low-water content materials by using vacuum pressure for dehydration without the structural changes that can be induced by a freezing cycle (’610 Patent, col. 19:46-55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims 2-5, 8-15, 17-24, and 26-36 (Compl. ¶27).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A freeze dryer with a chamber, vacuum pump, cooling system, and heating system.
- An electronic controller with a processor and memory.
- Memory including instructions for a "candy drying process."
- The process must include "reducing pressure in the chamber below ambient pressure to dry the material without the material being frozen."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are the Blue Alpine BA40MFD and BA70LFD model freeze dryers (Compl. ¶6).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as freeze dryers that are sold with an Owner's Manual detailing their construction and operation (Compl. ¶10). Based on the allegations, these dryers include specific functionality for processing candies. This includes a "Candy Pre-warm" feature and drying cycles that operate without a freezing phase, which the complaint alleges are marketed as unique processes for candy (Compl. ¶19, ¶37). The complaint alleges these products are placed into the stream of commerce throughout the United States (Compl. ¶6).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'609 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A freeze dryer comprising: a chamber... a vacuum pump... a cooling system... a heating system... and an electronic controller... | The accused products are described as freeze dryers containing a chamber, a vacuum pump, a refrigeration system for cooling, a heating system with heating pads, and an electronic controller with a processor and memory (Compl. ¶13-18). | ¶13-18 | col. 6:1-25 |
| wherein the instructions comprise a drying process including: warming the material in the chamber at or near ambient pressure to form a warmed material... | The accused products' Owner's Manual allegedly describes a "Candy Pre-warm" feature with instructions to "turn on the heating shelves before vacuum drying the candy" (Compl. ¶19). | ¶19 | col. 20:43-49 |
| and reducing pressure in the chamber below ambient pressure to dry the warmed material. | The Owner's Manual is alleged to state that after the pre-warm cycle, "the freeze dryer will proceed to the dry cycle and begin pulling vacuum while the candy is still hot" (Compl. ¶19). | ¶19 | col. 20:56-62 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the "Candy Pre-warm" feature of the accused products constitutes "warming the material... to form a warmed material" as recited in the claim. The analysis may explore whether this pre-warming step serves the same purpose and functions in the same way as the process described in the patent.
- Technical Questions: The dispute may turn on the specific operational parameters of the accused products' pre-warm cycle (e.g., temperature, duration, pressure conditions) and how they compare to the embodiments and definitions provided in the ’609 Patent specification.
'610 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A freeze dryer comprising: a chamber... a vacuum pump... a cooling system... a heating system... and an electronic controller... | The accused products are described as freeze dryers containing a chamber, a vacuum pump, a refrigeration system, a heating system, and an electronic controller with a processor and memory (Compl. ¶31-36). | ¶31-36 | col. 6:1-25 |
| wherein the instructions comprise a candy drying process including reducing pressure in the chamber below ambient pressure to dry the material without the material being frozen. | The Owner's Manual for the accused products allegedly describes candy-specific processes, stating that the "candy recipe... does not include a freeze cycle, because freeze-dried candy is a misnomer; it's only vacuum dried" (Compl. ¶37). | ¶37 | col. 19:35-39 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The analysis will likely focus on the meaning of "without the material being frozen." The question is whether this requires the material's temperature to remain above its freezing point throughout the process, or if it means the controller does not execute a programmed, active "freezing phase."
- Technical Questions: Evidence regarding the actual operation of the accused products will be critical. The complaint's direct quotation from the defendant's Owner's Manual stating the process is "only vacuum dried" and "does not include a freeze cycle" suggests the defendant's own characterization of its product may be used to argue that this claim limitation is met (Compl. ¶37).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "warming the material... to form a warmed material" (’609 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive step of Claim 1. Its construction will determine whether a "pre-warm" cycle, which is not part of traditional freeze-drying, falls within the claim's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement allegation hinges on equating the accused "Candy Pre-warm" feature with this claimed step.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a temperature or duration, referring only to "warming." The specification discusses heating to a variety of temperatures, for example "at least 100° F., at least 110° F., at least 120° F., or at least 130° F." (’609 Patent, col. 20:12-15), which could support a broad definition of "warming."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the heating step in the context of enhancing the characteristics of candy, which could suggest the "warming" must be sufficient to achieve that stated purpose (’609 Patent, col. 20:50-55). Embodiments show specific heating times and temperatures (e.g., "heat time... is 1-30 minutes") which may be used to argue for a more limited scope (’609 Patent, col. 20:18-21).
- The Term: "without the material being frozen" (’610 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This negative limitation is the key point of novelty for Claim 1, as it explicitly carves out the process from traditional freeze-drying. The infringement case for the ’610 Patent depends entirely on demonstrating that the accused candy process operates in this manner.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification contrasts the claimed method with a "typical freeze-drying process" that includes a distinct freezing step (’610 Patent, col. 19:35-39). This suggests the term may be construed as simply omitting a formal, programmed freezing cycle, which aligns with the alleged description in the defendant's Owner's Manual (Compl. ¶37).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue the term requires the material's temperature to remain above its freezing point at all times. The patent notes that in the claimed candy process, the material "is not exposed to low enough temperatures for a long enough time to freeze" (’610 Patent, col. 20:38-40), language that could be used to argue that avoiding any and all freezing is a strict requirement.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: For both the ’609 and ’610 patents, the complaint alleges induced and contributory infringement. The allegations are based on the Defendant's Owner's Manual, which allegedly instructs end-users on how to operate the accused freeze dryers in an infringing manner by using the "Candy Pre-warm" and candy-specific vacuum drying modes (Compl. ¶10, ¶19, ¶22, ¶28, ¶37, ¶40).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for both patents based on the assertion that Blue Alpine's acts were undertaken with "knowledge of the '609 Patent" and "knowledge of the '610 Patent" (Compl. ¶25, ¶43). The complaint does not plead specific facts demonstrating pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This dispute centers on whether a competitor's specialized freeze dryer settings for processing candy fall within the scope of Plaintiff's patented processes. The case will likely turn on the resolution of two main issues:
- A core issue will be one of process functionality: Does the accused "Candy Pre-warm" feature operate as the "warming... to form a warmed material" step required by the ’609 Patent? Similarly, does the accused candy recipe's "vacuum dried" process function "without the material being frozen" as claimed in the ’610 Patent?
- A second key issue will be one of evidentiary interpretation: How will the court interpret statements from the Defendant's own Owner's Manual, which the complaint alleges explicitly describe processes that mirror the patented inventions (e.g., "does not include a freeze cycle")? The degree to which these marketing or instructional statements are treated as admissions of technical fact could significantly influence the infringement analysis.