DCT
4:20-cv-00004
Agrasyst Inc v. Adj
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: AgraSyst, Inc. (Delaware) and AgQuam R&D, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Adjuvants Unlimited LLC (Oklahoma)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: McAfee & Taft; Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
- Case Identification: 4:20-cv-00004, N.D. Okla., 01/03/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant resides in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and has a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s agricultural spray adjuvant infringes a patent related to compositions for improving herbicide performance in hard water conditions.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns chemical adjuvants added to herbicide spray tanks to counteract the negative effects of mineral ions in "hard water," which can reduce the effectiveness of certain pesticides.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff AgraSyst sent a letter to Defendant’s customer, KALO, Inc., on August 7, 2019, regarding infringement. It further alleges that counsel for Defendant Adjuvants Unlimited contacted Plaintiff’s counsel on October 8, 2019, establishing a date of alleged actual notice for the purposes of willfulness.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-05-28 | Earliest Patent Priority Date ('886 Patent) |
| 2018-10-23 | Issue Date, U.S. Patent No. 10,104,886 |
| 2019-08-07 | Plaintiff's counsel sent letter to Defendant's customer (KALO) |
| 2019-10-08 | Defendant's counsel allegedly contacted Plaintiff's counsel |
| 2020-01-03 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,104,886 - "Manufacture and Use of Agricultural Spray Adjuvants for Hard Water Conditions"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,104,886, “Manufacture and Use of Agricultural Spray Adjuvants for Hard Water Conditions,” issued October 23, 2018.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes how hard water cations (e.g., Ca+2, Mg+2) present in spray solutions can bind with anionic pesticides like glyphosate, reducing their herbicidal efficacy (Compl., Ex. A, ’886 Patent, col. 1:22-31). The conventional solution, adding ammonium sulfate (AMS), is described as inefficient and difficult to dissolve and handle in large quantities (’886 Patent, col. 2:7-10).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an agricultural adjuvant comprising a mixture of a strong mineral acid (e.g., sulfuric acid) and a polyamine surfactant, such as tallow amine ethoxylate (’886 Patent, Abstract). The mineral acid is intended to be more efficient at neutralizing the hard water cations, while the polyamine surfactant is described as acting as a "slow release mechanism" for the acid, preventing the spray solution's pH from dropping too low and causing the pesticide to become unstable or non-sprayable (’886 Patent, col. 1:55-60, col. 5:36-41).
- Technical Importance: This approach seeks to provide a more concentrated, liquid, and efficient alternative to the industry standard (AMS) for conditioning hard water in agricultural spray applications (’886 Patent, col. 6:11-22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶36).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A water soluble glyphosate composition comprising: (a) an aqueous glyphosate solution, and (b) a concentrated solution comprising sulfuric acid and a specific polyamine surfactant (tallow amine ethoxylate or coco amine ethoxylate).
- A negative limitation wherein the composition does not contain ammonium sulfate (AMS).
- A ratio limitation requiring 1 quart to 2 gallons of the concentrated solution per 100 gallons of the glyphosate solution.
- A functional limitation wherein the final composition has a pH above the pKa2 of glyphosate.
- A comparative efficacy limitation wherein the composition provides "better herbicidal efficacy" than a specified amount of AMS.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is an agricultural adjuvant sold under the private label name "Spray Prep" (Compl. ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Spray Prep is a "water conditioning agent tank mix additive for glyphosate" (Compl. ¶24).
- It is described as a concentrated solution containing sulfuric acid and "polyoxyethleyne tallow amine" (Compl. ¶25-26). The product is allegedly used by being mixed into a glyphosate spray solution at a ratio of 1 quart to 1 gallon per 100 gallons of the spray mixture (Compl. ¶28). The complaint states that Defendant manufactures the product and sells it to KALO, Inc., which then re-sells it (Compl. ¶21, 32).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'886 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A water soluble glyphosate composition comprising: (a) an aqueous glyphosate solution comprising glyphosate or a salt thereof; | The Accused Product is alleged to be a "water conditioning agent tank mix additive for glyphosate" and is used in a "glyphosate spray mixture." | ¶24, 28 | col. 1:39-49 |
| (b) a concentrated solution comprising sulfuric acid and a polyamine surfactant selected from tallow amine ethoxylate and coco amine ethoxylate combined in an agricultural spray solution; | The Accused Product is alleged to be a concentrated solution containing sulfuric acid and "polyoxyethleyne tallow amine," which is alleged to be a polyamine surfactant selected from the claimed group. | ¶25, 26 | col. 6:23-29 |
| wherein said composition does not contain ammonium sulfate (AMS); | The complaint alleges that "The Accused Product does not contain ammonium sulfate (AMS)." | ¶27 | col. 1:62-2:2 |
| wherein said composition consists of a ratio of 1 quart to 2 gallons of (b) to 100 gallons of (a); | The Accused Product is allegedly used at a ratio of "1 quart to 1 gallon... per 100 gallons of glyphosate spray mixture." | ¶28 | col. 6:30-33 |
| and wherein said composition has a pH above the PKa2 of glyphosate, | The complaint alleges that "The Accused Product has a pH above the PKa2 of glyphosate." | ¶29 | col. 6:26-29 |
| and wherein better herbicidal efficacy is provided in comparison to 5-20 pounds AMS per 100 gallons of (a). | The complaint alleges that "The Accused Product has a better herbicidal efficacy compared to 5-20 pounds AMS per 100 gallons of an aqueous glyphosate solution." | ¶30 | col. 6:34-39, Fig. 1 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: A central question may be whether the accused ingredient "polyoxyethleyne tallow amine" (Compl. ¶26) falls within the scope of the claimed chemical group "tallow amine ethoxylate." While the names are similar, any structural or functional difference could be a basis for a non-infringement argument.
- Evidentiary Question: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation regarding the "better herbicidal efficacy" limitation (Compl. ¶30). A key point of contention will be what factual evidence, such as head-to-head field trial data, Plaintiffs can produce to demonstrate that the accused product, when used as directed, is superior to the specific AMS standard recited in the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "polyamine surfactant selected from tallow amine ethoxylate and coco amine ethoxylate"
Context and Importance: The infringement analysis hinges on whether the accused "polyoxyethleyne tallow amine" is equivalent to or falls within the definition of the claimed surfactants. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specific chemical identity of the accused ingredient is a primary factual basis for the infringement claim.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the list is exemplary, not exhaustive, and that "polyamine surfactant" is the key descriptor, allowing for chemically similar compounds that perform the same function. The specification broadly discusses the use of a "cationic surfactant" to deliver the acid (’886 Patent, col. 6:23-29).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of "selected from" is often interpreted as creating a closed or "Markush" group, limiting the claim to only the specifically listed items (tallow amine ethoxylate, coco amine ethoxylate). The patent’s examples specifically use "Tallow Am 3780" (’886 Patent, col. 6:42-45), potentially narrowing the scope to the exact embodiments disclosed.
The Term: "better herbicidal efficacy"
Context and Importance: This comparative term requires establishing a baseline for performance. The outcome of the case could depend on how "better" is defined and measured, and what standard of proof is required to meet this limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any statistically significant improvement over the baseline (5-20 pounds AMS) meets the limitation, regardless of magnitude.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides charts (FIG. 1 and FIG. 2) showing specific percentage control levels achieved by the invention versus AMS. A party could argue these figures define the degree of improvement required to be considered "better" under the patent, setting a specific quantitative threshold.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides instructions for the product's formulation and use with the specific intent that end-users will infringe (Compl. ¶38). It also alleges contributory infringement, claiming the accused product is especially made for use in an infringing manner and is not a staple commodity suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶41-42).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the ’886 Patent since at least October 8, 2019, following communications between legal counsel (Compl. ¶37, 39). The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has continued post-notice (Compl. ¶44).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This dispute appears to center on highly technical questions of chemical composition and performance. The key questions for the court will likely be:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the accused product's "polyoxyethleyne tallow amine" ingredient fall within the literal scope of the claimed "tallow amine ethoxylate," or is it non-infringingly different? The construction of the phrase "selected from" will be critical to resolving this question.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of comparative function: what factual evidence will Plaintiffs present to prove that the accused product achieves "better herbicidal efficacy" than the specific amount of ammonium sulfate (AMS) required by the claim? This will likely require expert testimony and data from controlled scientific studies.