DCT
2:25-cv-06635
BASF Agricultural Solutions US LLC v. Sharda USA LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: BASF Agricultural Solutions US LLC (Delaware / North Carolina)
- Defendant: Sharda USA LLC (Delaware / Pennsylvania)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stapleton Segal Cochran LLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-06635, E.D. Pa., 11/24/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because Defendant resides in the district, maintains a principal place of business in Norristown, PA, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s generic saflufenacil-based herbicides infringe a patent covering a specific, highly stable crystalline form of the saflufenacil active ingredient.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns agricultural chemistry, specifically the solid-state chemistry (polymorphism) of a herbicide, where different crystalline forms of the same chemical can have significantly different properties affecting manufacturing, stability, and biological efficacy.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint’s infringement theory relies heavily on Defendant’s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registration documents, which allegedly demonstrate a purity level for the active ingredient that Plaintiff claims is only achievable by practicing the patented invention.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-10-13 | ’026 Patent Priority Date |
| 2013-01-29 | ’026 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-05-12 | Alleged first importation of Accused Products |
| 2025-11-01 | Alleged first sale of Accused Product (approximate date) |
| 2025-11-24 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,362,026 - “Crystalline form of 2-chloro-5-[3,6-dihydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-1-(2H)-pyrimidinyl]-4-fluoro-N-[[methyl(1-methyl-ethyl)amino]sulfonyl]benzamide”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the previously known amorphous form of the herbicidal compound saflufenacil as being "only moderately suitable" for creating commercial formulations due to potential "stability problems" (’026 Patent, col. 3:40-45).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a specific crystalline polymorph of saflufenacil, designated "form II," which is described as being "essentially solvent-free" (’026 Patent, Abstract). This crystalline form allegedly overcomes the stability and formulation issues of the amorphous version, provides better herbicidal activity, and exhibits improved crop tolerance (’026 Patent, col. 3:46-55). The unique crystal structure is identified by a characteristic pattern of peaks in an X-ray powder diffractogram (’026 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: In agrochemical development, identifying a stable crystalline polymorph is critical for ensuring product shelf-life, consistent performance, and ease of manufacturing on an industrial scale (’026 Patent, col. 3:40-45).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 13 (Compl. ¶49).
- Independent Claim 1 (Composition):
- A crystalline, essentially solvent-free form II of the saflufenacil compound.
- Which, when analyzed by an X-ray powder diffractogram at 25° C. using Cu-Kα radiation, shows at least six of thirteen specific reflexes (peaks) listed as 2θ values.
- Independent Claim 13 (Method of Use):
- A method of controlling undesired vegetation.
- Wherein the crystalline form II according to claim 1...
- ...is allowed to act on plants, their environment and/or on seeds.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Accused Products are Defendant’s saflufenacil-containing herbicide products, including those marketed under the trade names "Feature," "Race," and "Mystree" (Compl. ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Products are agricultural herbicides intended for weed control in various crops (Compl. ¶¶18-19, 43). The complaint alleges these are lower-cost "generic" versions of Plaintiff’s own patented saflufenacil products, such as Sharpen® and Treevix® (Compl. ¶¶14, 18-19). The complaint provides a screenshot from Defendant's website for the "Race" product that explicitly lists "Sharpen" as the "Cited Brand Name," indicating an intent to compete directly with Plaintiff's product (Compl. ¶24). The complaint also includes visuals showing maps of the states where the "Race" and "Mystree" products are registered or in the process of registration (Compl. ¶¶24-25).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’026 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A crystalline, essentially solvent-free form II of [saflufenacil]... | The complaint alleges that Defendant’s saflufenacil technical active ingredient is in a crystalline and essentially solvent-free anhydrous form. This is inferred from Defendant’s EPA registration, which states a nominal concentration of 99.24% by weight—a purity level the complaint claims is only achievable with the patented Form II anhydrate, as other known forms contain water or solvents that limit purity to below 97%. | ¶¶16, 56, 58-59 | col. 4:1-5 |
| ...which in an X-ray powder diffractogram...shows at least six of the following reflexes... | The complaint alleges that because the Accused Products contain Form II, they will "necessarily contain the reflexes listed in Claim 1 as they are inherent properties of and diagnostic for crystalline saflufenacil form II." No direct analytical data from the Accused Products is provided. The product label for "Race" is included as evidence that it contains saflufenacil at a concentration of 29.74% (Compl. ¶50). | ¶60 | col. 15:20-26 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's direct infringement theory rests on a significant inferential leap: it deduces the crystalline structure of the accused ingredient from its alleged purity as stated in regulatory filings, rather than presenting direct evidence (e.g., an X-ray powder diffraction analysis) of the accused product itself. A central question will be whether these allegations are sufficiently plausible to proceed without such direct evidence.
- Technical Questions: The complaint’s core technical premise is that Form II is the only known crystalline form of saflufenacil capable of achieving purity greater than 97% (Compl. ¶16). This raises the question of whether other, non-infringing polymorphs or manufacturing processes could also yield such high-purity material, a point likely to be contested with expert testimony.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "essentially solvent-free"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to infringement, as the presence of a sufficient amount of solvent in Defendant's product could place it outside the scope of the claims. The complaint's argument for infringement relies on the high purity of Defendant's product, which it equates with being "essentially solvent-free" (Compl. ¶59).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification provides an explicit definition, stating the term means "the amount of solvent in the crystal lattice is less than 10 mol %, in particular not more than 5 mol %" (’026 Patent, col. 4:1-5). This provides a clear, quantitative upper boundary.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the repeated use of "anhydrous" in the complaint (Compl. ¶59) and the patent's distinction from solvates and hydrates implies a more stringent, near-zero threshold for solvent content, potentially seeking to limit the scope to what is disclosed in the patent's working examples.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement of method claim 13 by providing product labels and instructions that direct end-users to apply the Accused Products to control vegetation on "field and row crops" (Compl. ¶¶71, 75). The complaint alleges these instructions are provided with knowledge of the ’026 Patent and with the intent to cause infringement (Compl. ¶¶71, 79).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported awareness of Plaintiff’s patented products and, at a minimum, notice of infringement provided by the filing of this complaint (Compl. ¶¶27, 68, 85). The complaint characterizes Defendant's business model as that of a "generic" supplier that benefits from the research of innovator companies, which may be used to suggest pre-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶14).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Does the complaint’s infringement theory—which infers the product’s patented crystalline structure from its purity level stated in EPA registrations—present a plausible claim for relief in the absence of direct analytical testing of the accused product?
- The case will also turn on a question of technical exclusivity: Is the patented saflufenacil Form II, as the complaint alleges, the only crystalline form capable of achieving the high purity reported in Defendant’s regulatory filings, or could a non-infringing form also meet this specification?