Bulk Natural LLC v. Abstrax Tech Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Bulk Natural, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Abstrax Tech Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kolitch Romano Dascenzo Gates LLC
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-02019, D. Or., 10/31/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts venue is proper in the District of Oregon because Defendant sent a demand letter into the district, sells competing products in the district, and maintained a registered agent in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendant’s patents related to chemical compositions for cannabis aromas are invalid, following receipt of a demand letter from Defendant alleging infringement.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the identification and combination of specific organosulfur and terpene compounds to replicate the distinct "gassy" or pungent aroma of certain cannabis strains.
• Key Procedural History: This action was precipitated by a demand letter from Defendant Abstrax alleging that Plaintiff Bulk Natural’s product infringes two patents. The complaint alleges that key prior art, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0080265, was not considered by the USPTO during the prosecution of either patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2015-03-19	Alleged invalidating prior art ('265 Publication) published
2020-01-21	Earliest priority date for '757 and '350 Patents
2022-01-04	U.S. Patent No. 11,214,757 issues
2024-09-24	U.S. Patent No. 12,098,350 issues
2025-10-16	Defendant sends demand letter to Plaintiff
2025-10-31	Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,214,757 - "Sulfur-Containing Volatile Organic Compounds in Cannabis," Issued January 4, 2022

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that while the cannabis industry has focused on terpenes to define aroma, attempts to emulate the "quintessential aroma of cannabis—a strong, sulfuric, gassy odor" using only terpenes have been unsuccessful, leaving the chemical origin of this specific scent a "mystery." (’757 Patent, col. 2:1-18).
• The Patented Solution: The invention identifies a class of volatile sulfur compounds (VSCs), specifically organosulfur compounds like prenyl mercaptan, as the source of the "gassy" aroma. The solution is a composition that combines one or more of these specified organosulfur compounds with one or more primary terpene compounds (e.g., myrcene, limonene) to create flavor, fragrance, or inhalable products that replicate the desired pungent cannabis scent. (’757 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:23-38). FIG. 1 provides chemical structures of several of the claimed organosulfur compounds. (’757 Patent, FIG. 1).
• Technical Importance: The invention claims to be the first to chemically identify and isolate the specific, non-terpene compounds responsible for the characteristic "skunk" or "gassy" aroma of popular cannabis strains, enabling its replication in various consumer products. (’757 Patent, col. 11:51-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies independent Claim 1 as being asserted (Compl. ¶7, 12).
• Essential elements of Claim 1:
  • A composition comprising:
  • An organosulfur compound selected from a specific Markush group of ten compounds (e.g., prenyl mercaptan, 2-methylthiophene) or a combination thereof; and
  • A primary terpene compound selected from a specific Markush group of eight compounds (e.g., myrcene, limonene) or a combination thereof;
  • Wherein the composition is one of an edible, aerosol, flavor, fragrance, or inhalable composition.
• The complaint notes that dependent claims 4-6 and 11-12 of the ’757 Patent were also asserted in the demand letter (Compl. ¶7).

U.S. Patent No. 12,098,350 - "Sulfur-Containing Volatile Organic Compounds in Cannabis," Issued September 24, 2024

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint states that the ’350 Patent shares a "virtually identical specification" with the ’757 Patent, addressing the same technical problem of identifying and recreating the "gassy" cannabis aroma (Compl. ¶17; ’350 Patent, col. 2:1-23).
• The Patented Solution: Rather than claiming a composition, this patent claims a process for enhancing the aroma or taste of a product. The patented solution is the process of adding one of the specified organosulfur compounds to a product, such as an edible, aerosol, or fragrance product, to impart the desired "gassy" characteristic. (’350 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:1-13). The specification is substantively the same as the ’757 patent, including the illustrative chemical structures in FIG. 1. (’350 Patent, FIG. 1).
• Technical Importance: This patent extends protection from the chemical composition itself to the method of using the key organosulfur compounds as additives to enhance other products. (’350 Patent, col. 13:1-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies independent Claim 1 as being asserted (Compl. ¶7, 19).
• Essential elements of Claim 1:
  • A process for augmenting or enhancing a gassy aroma or taste of a product, the process comprising:
  • Adding an organosulfur compound to the product;
  • Wherein the organosulfur compound is selected from a specific Markush group of ten compounds (identical to the ’757 Patent's list); and
  • Wherein the product is an edible, aerosol, flavor, fragrance, or inhalable product.
• The complaint notes that dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 9, and 11-13 of the ’350 Patent were also asserted in the demand letter (Compl. ¶7).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "True Terpenes Skunk Terpene Flavor Modifier product" (Compl. ¶7).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges this product is a flavor modifier designed to be added to other products to impart a specific "skunk terpene" flavor profile (Compl. ¶7). The filing of a declaratory judgment action suggests the product is commercially available and that Bulk Natural (dba True Terpenes) manufactures and sells products that Abstrax has accused of infringement (Compl. ¶1). No further technical details on the product's composition or method of manufacture are provided in the complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain infringement allegations made by the Plaintiff; rather, it seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity in response to allegations received from the Defendant patent holder. The complaint states that Defendant Abstrax provided claim charts in a demand letter, but these charts were attached as an exhibit and are not included with the complaint document itself (Compl. ¶8). A summary of the infringement theories, as described in the complaint, is provided below in prose.

• ’757 Patent (Composition Claims): Abstrax alleges that Bulk Natural’s "Skunk Terpene Flavor Modifier product" is a composition that infringes at least Claim 1 of the ’757 Patent (Compl. ¶7). This suggests Abstrax contends the product itself contains at least one of the claimed organosulfur compounds and at least one of the claimed primary terpene compounds, and that the product is a flavor composition as required by the claim.
• ’350 Patent (Process Claims): Abstrax alleges that Bulk Natural infringes at least Claim 1 of the ’350 Patent, which is a process claim (Compl. ¶7). This suggests Abstrax contends that the manufacture, use, or sale of the "Skunk Terpene Flavor Modifier product" involves the claimed process of "adding an organosulfur compound to... a product" to augment its aroma or taste.
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A potential question for the court may be whether the "Skunk Terpene Flavor Modifier product" itself constitutes a "flavor composition" under the ’757 Patent, or if it is merely an ingredient intended for later use in such a composition. For the ’350 Patent, a question may arise as to whether Bulk Natural performs the claimed "process" by selling a modifier product, or if the end-user who combines it with another product is the one performing the process.
  • Technical Questions: The central technical question will be evidentiary: does chemical analysis of the accused product confirm the presence of both a claimed organosulfur compound and a claimed primary terpene compound as required by the ’757 Patent's composition claims?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific claim terms from an infringement perspective. However, based on the technology and the nature of the claims, certain terms may become central to the dispute.

• The Term: "composition" (’757 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is the preamble of the asserted independent claim of the ’757 Patent. The distinction between a final "composition" (e.g., a ready-to-use vape liquid or food product) and a "flavor modifier" intended as an ingredient for a final composition may be a critical issue for determining infringement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the composition as potentially being a "flavor and/or fragrance composition" and lists numerous forms, including food, beverages, and inhalable products, which could suggest the term is meant to be interpreted broadly. (’757 Patent, col. 2:35-38).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The dependent claims add specific limitations, such as Claim 9, which recites a "food or beverage product." An argument could be made that the independent claim must be broader than these dependent claims, but the specific examples provided in the specification primarily describe finished consumer goods, which could support a narrower reading that excludes intermediate ingredients. (’757 Patent, col. 22:58-59).

• The Term: "adding an organosulfur compound to the product" (’350 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This is the core step of the asserted process claim in the ’350 Patent. The definition of who performs this "adding" step will be critical for determining liability for direct infringement. Practitioners may focus on whether the act of creating a flavor modifier for sale constitutes "adding" the compound to "the product," or if "the product" refers to the final consumer good that the modifier is added to.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the process broadly as one for "augmenting or enhancing the gassy aroma or taste of a product." This could be interpreted to cover any step in a manufacturing chain where the organosulfur compound is introduced. (’350 Patent, col. 3:4-15).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites "adding... to the product," where "the product" is defined as an edible, aerosol, flavor, etc. This could be construed to mean the "adding" step must occur with respect to the final, defined product type, not an intermediate modifier. (’350 Patent, col. 22:12-23).

VI. Other Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

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

This declaratory judgment action appears poised to center on questions of patent validity, particularly in light of allegedly overlooked prior art.

• A core issue will be one of validity over prior art: Does the ’265 Publication, which the complaint alleges was not considered by the USPTO, either alone or in combination with other references, anticipate or render obvious the claimed inventions of combining specific organosulfur and terpene compounds to produce a cannabis-like aroma?
• A second key issue will be one of claim scope and infringement: For the ’757 Patent, does a "flavor modifier" product meet the claim limitation of a "composition," or is it an unprotected intermediate ingredient? For the ’350 Patent, does the act of manufacturing and selling such a modifier constitute performance of the claimed "process," or does infringement only occur when an end-user performs the final "adding" step?