DCT
0:18-cv-02309
Joseph Goche v. Main Transport LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: NCJC, Inc. (Iowa) and Joseph Goche (Minnesota)
- Defendant: Rick Lawrence (Minnesota), Randy Main (Iowa), and Main Transport, LLC d/b/a NutraBoss (Iowa)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie P.A.
- Case Identification: 0:18-cv-02309, D. Minn., 08/07/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Minnesota because at least one defendant, Rick Lawrence, resides in the District, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims allegedly occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that a patent for an agricultural nutrient dispensing system was improperly filed and commercialized by a former collaborator, and seek a declaration of ownership, correction of inventorship, and damages.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to precision agriculture, specifically applicator systems attached to tractor booms for delivering fertilizer and other chemicals to row crops with improved accuracy and reduced crop damage.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff NCJC hired Defendant Lawrence to develop an invention conceived by Plaintiff Goche. A provisional and a non-provisional patent application were filed naming both Goche and Lawrence as joint inventors. Subsequently, Lawrence is alleged to have filed a continuation application on his own, excluding Goche as an inventor, which ultimately issued as the patent-in-suit. This prosecution history is central to the complaint’s claims for correction of inventorship and assignment of the patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-11-03 | U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/074,217 Priority Date |
| 2015-11-03 | Filing of parent U.S. Patent Application No. 14/931,842 |
| 2016-11-10 | Filing of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/348,672 (issued as '892 Patent) |
| 2018-02-20 | U.S. Patent No. 9,894,892 Issues |
| 2018-08-07 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,894,892 - "AGRICULTURAL CROP APPLICATION SYSTEM"
- Issued: February 20, 2018.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies inefficiencies in existing agricultural applicators, noting that their weight and rigidity can cause crop damage, damage the applicator itself when traversing varied terrain, and make attachment to and removal from a tractor boom time-consuming and difficult (’892 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a movable applicator system for dispensing products onto crops from a supporting boom. It features a hose assembly with unique bending properties and a swivel connection, which allows the applicator tip to "self-center" between crop rows and "surf" above obstacles on the ground, minimizing damage (’892 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:51-59). The complaint highlights an embodiment of this concept in a figure from the parent patent application, showing multiple hose assemblies (80) hanging from a boom (18) with applicators designed to drag along the ground (Compl. ¶38, FIG.1).
- Technical Importance: This design aims to provide a more precise, efficient, and less damaging method for applying agricultural products in the field, a key goal in precision farming (Compl. ¶¶17-18, 22-23).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claims 1, 10, and 14 as containing features to which Plaintiff Goche allegedly contributed (Compl. ¶¶66, 68, 118).
- The essential elements of asserted independent claim 1 include:
- A product delivery hose assembly extending downwardly from a boom.
- At least one tube coupled to the boom, comprising multiple segments coupled together to permit flexing, with an interior for retaining the hose assembly.
- At least one nozzle in fluid communication with the distal end of the hose assembly.
- A bracket near the distal end to position the nozzle at an angle.
- A hang hook connected to the tube, adapted to retain an adjacent tube when not in use.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is the "NutraBoss," described as a "dual fertilizer placement apparatus or tool" (Compl. ¶50).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the NutraBoss is compatible with existing sprayers and is used to distribute nutrients near the root zone of row crops. Marketing materials cited in the complaint highlight features such as a "Single point hookup on existing boom," a "Double jointed placement tool," lightweight construction, and the ability to "Move[] easily through crop canopy" (Compl. ¶50). A screenshot from the defendants' website shows the NutraBoss system mounted on a sprayer boom in a field (Compl. ¶50). The complaint further alleges that the NutraBoss product is distributed through a partnership with Case/New Holland (Compl. ¶52).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a formal infringement count, but alleges that the Defendants' NutraBoss product "practices the joint invention" (Compl. ¶47). The following chart summarizes a potential infringement theory based on the product descriptions and allegations in the complaint.
'892 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a product delivery hose assembly extending downwardly from the boom... | The NutraBoss is an apparatus that attaches to a sprayer boom via a hose to deliver fertilizer. | ¶50 | col. 5:46-49 |
| at least one tube operatively coupled to the boom, the at least one tube comprising a plurality of tube segments operatively coupled together to permit flexing of the at least one tube... | The NutraBoss is described as a "Double jointed placement tool" that "Moves easily through crop canopy," which suggests the flexible, segmented structure required by the claim. | ¶50 | col. 6:1-5 |
| at least one nozzle coupled to and in fluid communication with the distal end of the product delivery hose assembly | The NutraBoss is a "fertilizer placement apparatus" used to "distribute nutrients," which necessarily implies a dispensing nozzle at the end of the delivery hose. | ¶50 | col. 6:55-58 |
| a bracket disposed proximate to the distal end of the product delivery hose assembly to position the at least one nozzle in an angled position | The photographs of the NutraBoss product appear to show a rigid bracket-like structure at the distal end of the tool for positioning the dispensing tips. | ¶50 | col. 6:58-61 |
| a hang hook connected to the at least one tube, the hang hook being adapted to retain an adjacent at least one tube when the product delivery hose assembly is not being used... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the "hang hook" element. | col. 6:61-64 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary dispute is not infringement but ownership and inventorship. However, a key underlying question is whether the commercialized NutraBoss product falls within the scope of the patent claims. The analysis may focus on whether every limitation is met, such as the specific "hang hook" for retaining an adjacent tube.
- Technical Questions: A central question for the inventorship claim is what specific technical contributions Goche made to the "conception" of the claimed invention (Compl. ¶118). The court may need to determine if Goche's alleged contributions—providing the initial system requirements and discussing improvements—rise to the level of joint inventorship for the specific combination of elements in claims 1, 10, and 14.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "permit flexing"
Context and Importance: The ability of the tube to "flex" is described as a core functional aspect of the invention, enabling it to move through crops without causing damage and "surf" over obstacles (’892 Patent, col. 4:51-54). Practitioners may focus on this term because the nature and source of this inventive concept could be central to the dispute over who—Goche or Lawrence—contributed to the conception of this key feature.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a broad range of motion, stating the components are "adapted to be bend about their longitudinal axis in any direction" (’892 Patent, col. 4:46-48).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes a specific structural arrangement of alternating "upper flex hose 42" and "middle flex hose 48" with rigid tubes, which could be argued to define a more specific type of flexing than simple bending (’892 Patent, col. 4:40-45).
The Term: "hang hook"
Context and Importance: This is a specific structural element recited in claim 1. Its presence or absence in the accused NutraBoss product could be a simple, binary test for whether that product practices claim 1. This could impact the scope of any potential damages or royalty calculations tied to the ownership dispute.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The figures show a simple hook-like structure (70) that can engage an adjacent assembly (’892 Patent, FIG. 18). One might argue any structure performing this retaining function meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the hook to be "adapted to retain an adjacent at least one tube when the product delivery hose assembly is not being used" (’892 Patent, col. 6:61-64). This specific purpose—retention during non-use—could be used to argue for a narrower construction that excludes general-purpose hooks or other components.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a formal count for indirect infringement. However, it alleges facts that could potentially support such a claim, stating that Defendants Main and Main Transport "induced Lawrence to partner with them to manufacture and sell a product" that practices the invention (Compl. ¶47) and that they distribute the product through partners like Case/New Holland (Compl. ¶52).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not formally alleged. The complaint’s focus is on the alleged bad faith conduct related to inventorship and ownership, including "intentionally misrepresenting the inventorship" to the USPTO and acting with "deceptive conduct" (Compl. ¶64). These allegations concern misconduct during prosecution rather than infringement of a known patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of ownership: Do the facts alleged by Plaintiffs—that Defendant Lawrence was hired for the specific purpose of building an invention described by Goche and was paid and supplied with materials by NCJC—give rise to an implied contract or other legal obligation to assign the ’892 Patent to NCJC?
- A second central issue is one of inventorship: Did Plaintiff Goche’s alleged contributions, including providing the initial "detailed description of the system" and participating in design improvements, constitute a significant contribution to the conception of the invention as recited in the specific claims of the ’892 Patent, therefore making him a joint inventor who was improperly omitted?
- Finally, an essential evidentiary question will be whether the commercial "NutraBoss" product, as sold by the Defendants, actually embodies the specific combination of elements required by the asserted patent claims. The answer will directly impact the value of the intellectual property at the center of the ownership and contract dispute.