DCT

0:23-cv-01096

ADM Edible Bean Specialties Inc v. American Bean LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:23-cv-01096, D. Minn., 02/15/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains regular and established places of business in Minnesota.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unauthorized reproduction, treatment, and sale of proprietary edible bean varieties for replanting infringes five patents covering those specific plant lines.
  • Technical Context: The technology is conventional plant breeding for developing new varieties of edible dry beans with improved agricultural and commercial characteristics, such as seed size and resistance to cosmetic defects.
  • Key Procedural History: This action is a First Amended Complaint. The complaint alleges that the parties had a commercial relationship governed by Sales Contracts for the 2018-2022 growing seasons, under which Defendant allegedly agreed to restrictions on the use and reproduction of the patented seeds. This history may be central to establishing Defendant's knowledge for claims of willful and indirect infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-04-15 U.S. Patent 9,532,523 ('523 Patent) Priority Date
2016-02-05 U.S. Patent 9,775,312 ('312 Patent) Priority Date
2016-03-31 U.S. Patent 11,000,005 ('005 Patent) Priority Date
2017-01-03 U.S. Patent 9,532,523 ('523 Patent) Issued
2017-10-03 U.S. Patent 9,775,312 ('312 Patent) Issued
2019-01-01 Alleged Infringing Activities Commence (at least in 2019)
2019-02-08 U.S. Patent 11,778,975 ('975 Patent) Priority Date
2019-02-08 U.S. Patent 11,771,047 ('047 Patent) Priority Date
2021-05-11 U.S. Patent 11,000,005 ('005 Patent) Issued
2023-10-03 U.S. Patent 11,771,047 ('047 Patent) Issued
2023-10-10 U.S. Patent 11,778,975 ('975 Patent) Issued
2024-02-15 First Amended Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 11,000,005 - "Edible Bean Line <11278> (COWBOY)"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,000,005, "Edible Bean Line <11278> (COWBOY)," issued May 11, 2021 (Compl. ¶10).
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes the health benefits of legumes and identifies them as an "underutilized food in the United States," implying a need for improved varieties to encourage consumption ('005 Patent, col. 1:19-38).
    • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a novel pinto bean variety designated "COWBOY" (<11278>), created through a conventional cross of the 'La Paz' and 'Sinaloa' pinto varieties ('005 Patent, col. 2:65-68). The resulting plant line is claimed to produce seeds with a "larger, more desirable seed size" and "improved overall seed size stability" compared to other pinto bean lines ('005 Patent, col. 2:52-56).
    • Technical Importance: The invention provides a pinto bean variety with more uniform and commercially desirable seed characteristics, which is a key trait for agricultural producers and food processors ('005 Patent, col. 4:51-57).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 for direct infringement and includes assertions of claims 2, 4, and 10-12 for indirect infringement (Compl. ¶¶66, 73).
    • Independent Claim 1:
      • An edible bean seed designated as COWBOY, a sample of the edible bean seed deposited under accession no. PI 678951.
    • The complaint alleges direct infringement of claims 1, 10, and 12, and reserves the right to assert other dependent claims (Compl. ¶66).

U.S. Patent No. 9,532,523 - "Edible Bean Line <11258> (VIBRANT)"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,532,523, "Edible Bean Line <11258> (VIBRANT)," issued January 3, 2017 (Compl. ¶16).
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a specific commercial problem where the seed coat of pinto beans can darken during storage, which is "viewed by consumers as a product flaw" ('523 Patent, col. 1:30-32).
    • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses the "VIBRANT" (<11258>) pinto bean variety, which was developed to have a slow-darkening trait ('523 Patent, col. 3:56-59). This characteristic, conferred by a recessive gene, allows the bean to "retain improved bright white color through adverse weather conditions or upon storage" ('523 Patent, col. 4:56-59). The variety was developed from a cross between the breeding line 'SDP 1533' and the 'Sinaloa' variety ('523 Patent, col. 3:60-63).
    • Technical Importance: The invention addresses a specific market need by providing a pinto bean variety that resists a common cosmetic defect, thereby improving its shelf life and commercial value ('523 Patent, col. 4:50-59).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 for direct infringement and includes assertions of claims 2, 4, and 10-12 for indirect infringement (Compl. ¶¶83, 90).
    • Independent Claim 1:
      • An edible bean seed designated as Vibrant, wherein a representative sample of the edible bean seed was deposited under the National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation accession no PI 673082.
    • The complaint alleges direct infringement of claims 1, 10, and 12, and reserves the right to assert other dependent claims (Compl. ¶83).

U.S. Patent No. 9,775,312 - "Edible Bean Line <12324-1> (RADIANT)"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,775,312, "Edible Bean Line <12324-1> (RADIANT)," issued October 3, 2017 (Compl. ¶13).
  • Technology Synopsis: Like the ’523 Patent, the ’312 Patent addresses the problem of pinto bean seed coat darkening during storage ('312 Patent, col. 1:30-37). The solution is a distinct pinto bean variety, "RADIANT," which also possesses a slow-darkening trait conferred by a recessive gene, preserving its color and commercial appeal ('312 Patent, col. 3:55-58).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (direct); Claims 2, 4, 10-12 (indirect) (Compl. ¶¶100, 107).
  • Accused Features: The unauthorized making, using, and selling of the RADIANT bean seed variety for reproductive purposes (Compl. ¶100).

U.S. Patent No. 11,778,975 - "Edible Bean Line <14451> (LUMEN)"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,778,975, "Edible Bean Line <14451> (LUMEN)," issued October 10, 2023 (Compl. ¶19).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent also addresses the problem of seed coat darkening in pinto beans ('975 Patent, col. 1:29-37). The patented solution is the "LUMEN" bean variety, which carries a recessive gene that confers a slow-darkening trait, enabling the bean to retain a "bright, white color" even after storage or exposure to adverse weather ('975 Patent, col. 5:51-56).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (direct); Claims 2, 4, 10-12 (indirect) (Compl. ¶¶117, 124).
  • Accused Features: The unauthorized making, using, and selling of the LUMEN bean seed variety for reproductive purposes (Compl. ¶117).

U.S. Patent No. 11,771,047 - "Edible Bean Line <14455> (GLEAM)"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,771,047, "Edible Bean Line <14455> (GLEAM)," issued October 3, 2023 (Compl. ¶22).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent likewise addresses the problem of undesirable seed coat darkening in pinto beans ('047 Patent, col. 1:29-37). The invention is the "GLEAM" bean variety, which possesses a slow-darkening gene that helps it maintain a "bright white color," preserving its quality and commercial value ('047 Patent, col. 5:51-56).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (direct); Claims 2, 4, 10-12 (indirect) (Compl. ¶¶134, 141).
  • Accused Features: The unauthorized making, using, and selling of the GLEAM bean seed variety for reproductive purposes (Compl. ¶134).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are edible bean seeds of the "Cowboy," "Vibrant," "Radiant," "Lumen," and "Gleam" varieties, which Plaintiff alleges Defendant illegally propagated, treated, and sold for reproductive purposes (Compl. ¶¶51, 61, 66, 83, 100, 117, 134).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant purchased patented seeds from Plaintiff that were subject to a single-use license; specifically, they were to be grown for one season to produce a crop for human consumption, not for replanting (Compl. ¶¶25-28). The complaint alleges that Defendant breached this restriction by taking the harvested crop (beans), which embodies the patented genetics, and then "cleaned," "treated," and "conditioned" these beans to prepare them for use as seed (Compl. ¶¶52-53, 58, 62). Defendant then allegedly sold these treated beans to growers for replanting, an act that Plaintiff contends constitutes the unauthorized "making" and "selling" of the patented seed varieties (Compl. ¶¶54, 59, 61).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'005 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An edible bean seed designated as COWBOY, a sample of the edible bean seed deposited under accession no. PI 678951. Defendant is alleged to have made, used, sold, and offered to sell the "edible bean Cowboy" without authorization by taking the harvested crop, processing it into seed, and reselling it for replanting. ¶66 col. 5:31-33

'523 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An edible bean seed designated as Vibrant, wherein a representative sample of the edible bean seed was deposited under the National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation accession no PI 673082. Defendant is alleged to have made, used, sold, and offered to sell the "edible bean Vibrant" without authorization by taking the harvested crop, processing it into seed, and reselling it for replanting. ¶83 col. 5:19-23

Identified Points of Contention

  • Evidentiary Question: A primary focus of the dispute will likely be evidentiary. What proof can Plaintiff offer to establish that the seeds Defendant sold for replanting are genetically identical to the patented varieties defined by the deposit samples? The complaint makes these allegations "on information and belief" (Compl. ¶66), suggesting that discovery and expert testing will be required to prove identity.
  • Legal Question (Patent Exhaustion Doctrine): The case raises the question of whether the doctrine of patent exhaustion applies. Defendant may argue that Plaintiff's patent rights were exhausted by the initial authorized sale of seeds. The complaint appears to preempt this defense by alleging that the sales were subject to explicit single-use restrictions (Compl. ¶¶25-30) and that Defendant's actions of processing the harvested crop for replanting constitute a new "making" of the patented invention, an act that falls outside the exhaustion doctrine, as clarified in Bowman v. Monsanto.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the asserted product claims, claim construction in the traditional sense is unlikely to be a major point of contention, as the claims are defined by reference to a biological deposit.

  • The Term: "An edible bean seed designated as [COWBOY/VIBRANT], a sample of the edible bean seed deposited under accession no. [PI 678951/PI 673082]" ('005 Patent, cl. 1; '523 Patent, cl. 1).
  • Context and Importance: This language defines the entire scope of the patented product. Practitioners may focus on this term not for its linguistic meaning, but because infringement of the product claims hinges entirely on proving that the accused seeds are the same as the seeds defined by the deposit. The dispute will be one of identity rather than interpretation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the claim covers any seed possessing the novel genetic combination and characteristics of the deposited sample, regardless of lineage. However, the claim language itself ties the invention directly to the specific deposit.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specifications provide extensive tables detailing the physiological and morphological characteristics of the respective plant lines (e.g., '005 Patent, Table 2; '523 Patent, Table 2). While the claim points to the deposit as the ultimate definition, these detailed descriptions provide the objective characteristics that would be used to confirm whether an accused seed is, in fact, an embodiment of the claimed invention.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induced infringement by its customers (growers). The alleged inducement arises from Defendant selling the reproduced seed to growers with instructions and encouragement to plant and grow the seeds, which are acts of direct infringement (Compl. ¶¶73, 90). The complaint alleges Defendant did so with knowledge of the patents and knowledge that such use would infringe (Compl. ¶¶73, 90).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was and is willful. The basis for this allegation is Defendant's alleged knowledge of Plaintiff's patent rights, purportedly provided through express notice in sales contracts and on seed bag tags over several years (Compl. ¶¶25, 30, 71, 88). The complaint reproduces text allegedly from seed bag tags providing notice of patent rights and use restrictions (Compl. ¶25). The allegation is that Defendant proceeded with the infringing activities despite this knowledge.

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

  • A core issue will be one of varietal identity: what evidentiary proof, likely through genetic testing, will be required to establish that the seeds Defendant allegedly processed and resold are identical to the patented varieties defined by the biological deposits?
  • A central legal question will be the applicability of the patent exhaustion doctrine: does Defendant's alleged conduct of cleaning and treating a harvested crop for resale as seed constitute an infringing "making" of a new generation of the patented invention, thereby falling outside the protection of the exhaustion doctrine? The enforceability and scope of the alleged single-use license will be critical to this analysis.
  • A key question for damages will be willfulness: can Plaintiff prove that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of its infringement through the alleged contractual and on-bag notices, and if so, did Defendant's subsequent conduct rise to the level of objective or subjective recklessness required for enhanced damages?