DCT
1:23-cv-00368
Nuhn Industries Ltd v. Atlas Ag Services LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Nuhn Industries Ltd. (Ontario, Canada)
- Defendant: Atlas Ag Services, LLC (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP; Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C.
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00368, W.D.N.Y., 04/27/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on the Defendant being a New York LLC with its principal place of business in the district, having a regular and established place of business in the district, and having committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of the Bazooka Farmstar Wolverine Series Agitation Boat infringes four patents related to amphibious pumping vehicles for agitating manure lagoons.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the agricultural need for self-propelled, amphibious vehicles capable of entering, maneuvering within, and exiting large manure lagoons to agitate and pump liquid manure, a task poorly handled by prior stationary or less mobile equipment.
- Key Procedural History: Two of the asserted patents recently underwent Ex Parte Reexamination at the USPTO. The '557 Patent emerged with amended claims and numerous new claims, potentially altering its scope. In contrast, all original claims of the '425 Patent were confirmed as patentable, reinforcing their presumption of validity.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-08-19 | Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit |
| 2021-04-13 | U.S. Patent No. 10,974,557 Issues |
| 2021-05-13 | Earliest Marketing Date Alleged for Accused Product |
| 2022-02-02 | Earliest Alleged Infringing Use by Defendant |
| 2022-06-14 | U.S. Patent No. 11,358,425 Issues |
| 2022-11-08 | U.S. Patent No. 11,491,835 Issues |
| 2022-11-16 | '425 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issues |
| 2022-12-28 | '557 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issues |
| 2023-01-03 | U.S. Patent No. 11,541,708 Issues |
| 2023-04-27 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,974,557 - "Amphibious Pumping Vehicle," issued April 13, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the challenge of agitating manure in large farm lagoons, where pumps operating from the lagoon’s edge have limited reach and prior art boats are prone to getting stuck in mud or on solid waste islands (Compl. ¶¶16-18; ’557 Patent, col. 1:44-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-propelled amphibious vehicle that can drive into a lagoon on wheels, raise its wheels to float, and then use a system of fluid nozzles for both propulsion and agitation of the manure. The vehicle is operated by a remote control, and a single power source drives both the ground propulsion and the fluid pump, obviating the need for separate launch equipment or power sources (’557 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:41-43, col. 4:31-34).
- Technical Importance: This integrated, amphibious design provides a method for a single operator to safely and effectively agitate the entirety of a large lagoon without fear of the vehicle becoming stranded (Compl. ¶19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1, as amended by the reexamination certificate (Compl. ¶¶21, 51).
- Essential elements of amended Claim 1 include:
- A floatable vehicle body
- Ground engaging propulsion structure
- A fluid pump for pumping liquid manure
- At least one fluid nozzle connected to the pump by a fluid conduit
- A power source connected to a hydraulic pump, configured to power both the ground engaging propulsion and the fluid pump
- A remote control structure to control propulsion and fluid flow, enabling remote control of vehicle speed and direction on both land and water
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶50).
U.S. Patent No. 11,358,425 - "Amphibious Pumping Vehicle," issued June 14, 2022
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the '557 Patent, the invention targets the inefficiency and safety risks of agitating large manure lagoons with conventional equipment that cannot reach the center or is at risk of becoming stuck ('425 Patent, col. 1:31-48).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims an amphibious vehicle where the ground propulsion elements are specifically powered by a hydraulic motor. A key feature is a wireless remote control that gives a remote operator discrete control over four specific functions: ground propulsion, fluid flow from the pump, and the vehicle's speed and direction when on land and when floating (’425 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:59-col. 2:6).
- Technical Importance: The specific enumeration of functions controllable by a wireless remote highlights an emphasis on operator safety and precise maneuverability in hazardous conditions from a distance (Compl. ¶18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶64).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A floatable vehicle body
- Ground engaging propulsion structure comprising elements powered by a hydraulic motor
- A fluid pump for pumping liquid manure
- A power source connected to a hydraulic pump, providing power to both the propulsion structure and the fluid pump
- A wireless remote control enabling a remote operator to control: (1) the propulsion structure, (2) fluid flow from the pump, (3) vehicle speed/direction when ground-engaging, and (4) vehicle speed/direction when floating
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶63).
U.S. Patent No. 11,491,835 - "Amphibious Pumping Vehicle," issued November 8, 2022
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an amphibious vehicle having a "hydraulically powered liquid manure mover" that is distinct from the ground propulsion system and is positioned within the liquid manure when the vehicle is floating. A wireless remote control system allows an operator to control the vehicle's ground movement, the manure mover, and the vehicle's speed and direction in all operational modes ('835 Patent, Claim 17).
- Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶76).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Wolverine boat's use for manure agitation infringes, pointing to its pumping and agitation system that is remotely controlled while the vehicle operates in a lagoon (Compl. ¶75).
U.S. Patent No. 11,541,708 - "Amphibious Pumping Vehicle," issued January 3, 2023
- Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on an amphibious vehicle with an impeller inside a liquid manure pump, where the pump has a bottom inlet designed for immersion in the lagoon. The invention includes a wireless remote control that allows an operator to control the vehicle's power source as well as its speed and direction on both land and water ('708 Patent, Claim 1).
- Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶88).
- Accused Features: The infringement allegation targets the Wolverine boat's use of a remote-controlled, submersible pump for lagoon agitation (Compl. ¶¶28, 87).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Bazooka Farmstar Wolverine Series Agitation Boat (Compl. ¶1).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is marketed as a floating, amphibious vehicle with four large, aggressive tires designed to climb steep, muddy banks (Compl. ¶27). It is equipped with an "18" Bazooka Farmstar Submersible Pump & Front Gun" powered by an engine, and is operated via a remote control (Compl. ¶¶28-29). A screenshot from a marketing page for the Wolverine boat shows a picture of the vehicle and lists as a feature an '18" Bazooka Farmstar Submersible Pump & Front Gun' (Compl. p. 8). Defendant Atlas Ag Services uses the Wolverine boat to provide contract "lagoon agitation" services to farms (Compl. ¶30). The complaint alleges the product's success has been significant enough for the Defendant to raise its service rates (Compl. ¶44).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'557 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a floatable vehicle body | The Wolverine is marketed as a "floating vehicle." | ¶27 | col. 2:57-58 |
| ground engaging propulsion structure | The vehicle has four "large diameter, aggressive tires." | ¶27 | col. 2:4-7 |
| a fluid pump for pumping liquid manure | The vehicle includes an "18" Bazooka Farmstar Submersible Pump." | ¶28 | col. 2:42-43 |
| at least one fluid nozzle connected by a fluid conduit to the fluid pump | The vehicle has a "Front Gun" connected to the pump; Plaintiff alleges this is a "nozzle" or its equivalent. | ¶¶28, 52 | col. 3:21-26 |
| a power source connected to a hydraulic pump and configured to provide power to both the ground engaging propulsion structure and the fluid pump | The vehicle has an engine that powers the pump and is alleged to power the ground propulsion system. | ¶¶28, 51 | col. 8:36-39 |
| remote control structure configured to control the ground engaging propulsion structure and a flow of fluid from the fluid nozzle...when the vehicle is ground engaging and when the vehicle is floating | The vehicle is "controllable by a remote control." A photo shows an operator holding a yellow and black remote-control unit with joysticks and a screen, overlooking a lagoon (Compl. p. 9). | ¶29 | col. 4:31-41 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question is whether the accused product's "Front Gun" constitutes a "fluid nozzle" as that term is used in the patent. The complaint anticipates this dispute by pleading infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, suggesting the "Front Gun" may not literally meet the claim term's definition (Compl. ¶52).
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused vehicle's power source is connected to and provides power to both the fluid pump and the ground propulsion structure, as required by the claim? The complaint specifies the engine powers the pump but is less direct about the propulsion power source.
'425 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a floatable vehicle body | The Wolverine is a "floating vehicle." | ¶27 | col. 1:59 |
| ground engaging propulsion structure comprising a plurality of ground engaging elements powered by a hydraulic motor | The vehicle has four large tires; the complaint alleges these are powered by a hydraulic motor to meet the claim. | ¶¶27, 64 | col. 1:59-62 |
| a fluid pump for pumping liquid manure | The vehicle uses a "Submersible Pump." | ¶28 | col. 1:62-63 |
| a power source connected to a hydraulic pump...configured to provide power to both the ground engaging propulsion structure and the fluid pump | An engine powers the pump and is alleged to power the hydraulic system for the wheels. | ¶¶28, 64 | col. 1:63-66 |
| a wireless remote control configured to enable a remote operator to... (1) control...propulsion structure; (2) control...flow of liquid manure...; (3) control...speed and direction...when ground engaging; and, (4) control...speed and direction...when...floating | The vehicle is operated by a remote control, which is alleged to perform these four functions. A side-by-side photographic comparison shows Plaintiff's Nuhn Lagoon Crawler and the accused Wolverine Series Agitation Boat, both partially submerged in a lagoon (Compl. p. 15). | ¶¶29, 64 | col. 1:66-col. 2:6 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: Does the accused vehicle’s propulsion system in fact use a "hydraulic motor" as specifically required by Claim 1? The complaint alleges this but does not provide specific evidence, making it a likely focus of discovery.
- Scope Questions: Does the accused remote control system enable an operator to perform all four of the specific control functions enumerated in Claim 1? The analysis may turn on whether the remote provides discrete control over each function as claimed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "fluid nozzle" ('557 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical because the complaint preemptively raises a doctrine of equivalents argument regarding the accused "Front Gun" (Compl. ¶52). A narrow definition could preclude literal infringement, while a broad one could support it.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification functionally describes the element as being "configured to direct fluid through the air" (’557 Patent, col. 3:9), which could support a broad interpretation covering any structure that performs this function.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description and figures depict articulated nozzles that cooperate to provide "directional control and motive power for the vehicle while floating" (’557 Patent, col. 6:1-3; Fig. 5). A party could argue that a "nozzle" must be more than a simple outlet and possess these articulated, propulsive capabilities.
The Term: "remote control structure" / "wireless remote control" ('557 and '425 Patents)
- Context and Importance: Remote operation is a central feature of the asserted patents. The scope of this term, particularly regarding the four enumerated functions in Claim 1 of the '425 Patent, will be pivotal to the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The '557 patent describes the structure in broad functional terms, as a structure "configured to cause the vehicle to be remotely controllable" (’557 Patent, col. 4:31-33), potentially encompassing a wide range of remote systems.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The '425 Patent requires the remote to enable four specific functions. A defendant may argue that a remote system lacking the ability to perform even one of these enumerated functions falls outside the claim scope. The specification also describes the remote interfacing with a "hydraulic control center," which could be argued as a required structural limitation (’425 Patent, col. 8:59-62).
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all four patents. The allegations are based on post-suit knowledge, asserting that the Defendant was made aware of the patents by the filing of the complaint and has failed to cease its infringing activities since obtaining that knowledge (Compl. ¶¶56-57, 68-69, 80-81, 92-93).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "fluid nozzle," which is described in the patent specification with articulated and propulsive functions, be construed to cover the accused product's simpler "Front Gun," either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical correspondence: does the accused Wolverine boat possess the specific power and propulsion architecture recited in the claims, such as a single power source for both the pump and wheels ('557 Patent) and ground propulsion powered by a hydraulic motor ('425 Patent)? The complaint's allegations on these technical points will require substantiation through discovery.
- A central procedural question will be the impact of reexamination: how will the different outcomes—claim amendment for the '557 Patent versus claim confirmation for the '425 Patent—influence arguments regarding claim construction, validity, and the overall strength of the infringement case for each respective patent?