DCT

2:23-cv-00853

Frazer Industries LLC v. Centurion Pro Solutions Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: [Frazer Industries LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/frazer-industries-llc) v. [Centurion Pro Solutions Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/centurion-pro-solutions-inc), 2:23-cv-00853, D. Utah, 11/20/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Utah because Defendant has substantial and continuous business contacts with the state, including transacting business through a retail partner, Moonlight Garden Supply in Salt Lake City, which is listed on Defendant's corporate website.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cannabis harvesting machines, marketed as "Centurion Buckers," infringe a patent related to systems and methods for separating cannabis leaves and buds from stems.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses automated machinery for the commercial cannabis industry, aiming to improve the efficiency and yield of the harvesting process compared to manual labor or repurposed agricultural equipment.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with multiple pre-suit notices, beginning with a patent notification letter regarding the patent's underlying publication on December 26, 2019, followed by four additional letters in 2022 and 2023.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-01-13 ’066 Patent Priority Date
2019-12-26 First alleged notification letter sent to Defendant
2022-06-22 Second alleged notification letter sent to Defendant
2022-09-22 Third alleged notification letter sent to Defendant
2023-01-10 Fourth alleged notification letter sent to Defendant
2023-09-26 ’066 Patent Issue Date
2023-11-01 Fifth alleged notification letter sent to Defendant
2023-11-20 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,766,066 - "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MEDICINAL CANNABIS HARVESTING"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the inefficiency and inconsistency of conventional manual cannabis harvesting and notes that automated systems from other agricultural fields are ineffective due to the unique stem structure and properties of the cannabis plant (col. 1:22-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a mechanical harvesting system that uses a stationary "die member"—a plate with multiple orifices of varying sizes—positioned in close proximity to a pair of counter-rotating cylindrical members (rollers). An operator feeds a cannabis stem through an appropriately sized orifice, and the rollers grip the stem and pull it through, causing the edge of the orifice to strip the leaves and buds from the stem (’066 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed invention provides a purpose-built automated solution for a critical step in cannabis processing, aiming to increase harvest speed and efficiency while maintaining the quality of the product (col. 1:22-29, 1:56-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "the claims of the ’066 patent" without specifying particular claims (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is the broadest system claim and is representative of the core invention.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • a frame member;
    • a die member coupled to the frame, which includes a plurality of orifices on a plate;
    • a first and a second rotating cylindrical member oriented in a "substantially vertical configuration" that defines a "pinch region";
    • a rotation system with a motor and power source; and
    • a specific spatial relationship wherein the orifices on the die member are disposed "within six inches of the pinch region." (’066 Patent, col. 13:1-21).
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert all claims of the patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s "cannabis bucker machines," specifically including the HP1, HP3, HPTT, HPM, Centurion Pro XL, and Megabucker models (collectively, "Centurion Buckers") (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the accused products as machines for cannabis harvesting that are sold and distributed in the United States via Defendant's website and affiliated retail stores (Compl. ¶9). A screenshot from the Defendant's website shows several 'Bucker' models for sale, including the 'TABLETOP BUCKER' and 'HP1 BUCKER' (Compl. p. 3). The complaint does not, however, provide any specific details about the internal mechanisms or principles of operation of the Centurion Buckers.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed mapping of accused product features to specific claim elements, precluding the creation of a standard claim chart. The infringement allegations are made generally, stating that "at least one of the Centurion Buckers products are encompassed by and infringe the claims of the ’066 patent" (Compl. ¶11).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint lacks technical evidence demonstrating how the accused Centurion Buckers operate. A central question for the litigation will be whether discovery reveals that these products actually contain every element of the asserted claims. For instance, do they employ a "die member" with fixed orifices in combination with a "pinch region" created by rotating rollers to strip plant material, as claimed in the ’066 patent?
    • Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires the rotating members to be in a "substantially vertical configuration." The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused products' rollers are arranged in this specific stacked orientation or another configuration (e.g., side-by-side).
    • Technical Questions: A key limitation in claim 1 is that the orifices must be "within six inches of the pinch region." A critical factual question will be whether the accused products meet this specific dimensional requirement, a feature the patent identifies as a key discovery for proper function with cannabis plants (’066 Patent, col. 10:30-33).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "die member"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the central stripping component of the invention. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether the component in the accused products that performs the stripping function falls within the scope of this term.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The general term "die member" could be argued to encompass various structures that use an edge to strip material.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification explicitly defines the term as "a single layer plate which may contain a plurality of holes, dies, or orifices" (’066 Patent, col. 4:25-27). The embodiments consistently depict a distinct, planar component (e.g., ’066 Patent, Fig. 12A, element 432; col. 8:56), which may support a narrower construction limited to such a structure.

  • The Term: "disposing the plurality of orifices within six inches of the pinch region"

  • Context and Importance: This is a precise dimensional limitation that appears to be a point of novelty. Proving infringement will require specific measurements of the accused devices, and the interpretation of "pinch region" and the method of measurement will be critical.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "within six inches" should be interpreted to accommodate minor variations, especially if the function is the same.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification presents this distance as a critical and non-obvious discovery, stating that "Extensive testing has concluded that the distance to the pinch region 492 must be under six inches to function properly for harvesting of cannabis" and that this is "in contrast to the operation of conventional stripping systems" (’066 Patent, col. 10:30-36). This language suggests the six-inch limit is a strict requirement, potentially limiting the scope of equivalents.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement by asserting that Defendant makes, sells, and distributes infringing products to "Centurion stores and consumers" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not, however, allege specific facts supporting the required element of intent, such as citing to user manuals that instruct on an infringing use.
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patent. The complaint alleges that Defendant was notified of the patent's publication as early as December 26, 2019, and received four subsequent letters after that date, both before and after the patent issued on September 26, 2023 (Compl. ¶¶12-13).

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

  • A primary issue is evidentiary: The complaint's lack of technical detail means the case will initially depend on whether discovery reveals that the accused Centurion Buckers actually incorporate the specific architecture recited in the patent's claims, such as the die plate, vertically-stacked rollers, and the spatial relationship between them.
  • A key question of infringement will be dimensional: do the accused devices meet the critical limitation of claim 1 requiring the stripping orifices to be located "within six inches of the pinch region" of the rollers? The resolution will depend on both the physical characteristics of the accused products and the court's construction of the relevant claim terms.
  • Finally, a central question for damages will be willfulness: assuming infringement is found, the court will have to determine whether Defendant's alleged conduct was willful, an analysis that will likely focus on the content of the five alleged pre-suit notification letters and any actions Defendant took in response.