DCT
2:25-cv-00202
Frazer Industries LLC v. Eteros Technologies
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Frazer Industries LLC (Washington)
- Defendant: Eteros Technologies Inc. (Canada); Eteros Technologies USA, Inc. (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Baker IP PLLC; RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00202, D. Utah, 03/17/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Utah because Defendants have sufficient contacts with the jurisdiction to be subject to personal jurisdiction, including regularly transacting business in the district through a retail partner located in Salt Lake City.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s commercial cannabis harvesting machines infringe a patent related to systems for mechanically separating cannabis leaves and buds from stems.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses automated harvesting in the commercial cannabis industry, aiming to improve the efficiency and consistency of stripping valuable leaves and buds from plant stems.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit underwent a reexamination that resulted in the amendment of claims 7-10. It also alleges that Defendants had knowledge of the patent's publication as early as October 16, 2018, via a patent notification letter, which may form the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-01-13 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,766,066 |
| 2018-10-16 | Alleged Pre-Suit Notice via Patent Notification Letter |
| 2023-09-26 | U.S. Patent No. 11,766,066 Issues |
| 2025-03-17 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,766,066 - SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MEDICINAL CANNABIS HARVESTING, Issued Sep. 26, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficiency and inconsistency of conventional manual methods for harvesting cannabis, which involve separating desirable leaves and buds from undesirable stems. It notes that automated equipment from other agricultural fields is ineffective for cannabis due to the plant’s unique stem structure. (’066 Patent, col. 1:26-58).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a mechanical system for stripping cannabis plants. The system features a "die member"—a plate with multiple orifices of varying sizes—positioned adjacent to a pair of counter-rotating "cylindrical members" (e.g., wheels). A user inserts a plant stem through an appropriately sized orifice, and the rotating members grip the stem and pull it through, while the edge of the orifice strips off the leaves and buds. (’066 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:2-21; Fig. 4). A key aspect of the design is the close proximity between the stripping orifices and the "pinch region" created by the rotating members. (’066 Patent, col. 13:21-23).
- Technical Importance: The described technology aims to provide an improved, automated apparatus for cannabis stem separation, thereby increasing harvest efficiency for commercial growers while maintaining the quality of the harvested product. (’066 Patent, col. 1:59-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one of the claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶13). Independent claim 1 is representative of the asserted system:
- Independent Claim 1:
- a frame member;
- a die member coupled to the frame member, including a plurality of orifices disposed within a plate;
- a first rotating cylindrical member coupled to the frame member adjacent to the die member;
- a second rotating member coupled to the frame member adjacent to the die member;
- wherein the two rotating members are oriented in a substantially vertical configuration defining a pinch region where they are in closest proximity;
- a rotation system with a motor and power source coupled to the frame and at least one rotating member; and
- wherein the coupling disposes the plurality of orifices within six inches of the pinch region.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused products as the "Eteros Buckers," specifically the BUCKMASER, BUCKMASTER PRO, and MBX BUCKER models (Compl. ¶11). These products are marketed under Defendants' "THE TRIMINATOR" and "MOBIUS" brands (Compl. ¶7).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these are "multiple cannabis bucker machines" for commercial harvesting (Compl. ¶11). Visuals provided in the complaint depict machines with hoppers and front plates containing multiple orifices, consistent with devices designed to have plant stems fed into them for processing. For example, a provided screenshot shows the BUCKMASTER / BUCKMASTER PRO, which are marketed as "COMMERCIAL CANNABIS AND HEMP BUCKERS" (Compl. p.5). Another visual shows the MBX BUCKER, a mobile unit advertised as capable of "DRY OR WET BUCKING 80-150 LBS/HR" (Compl. p.6). The complaint alleges these products are sold in the judicial district through retail partners, evidenced by a screenshot from Defendants' website showing a store locator result for Salt Lake City, Utah (Compl. ¶8, p.4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint makes a general allegation that the accused products infringe at least one claim of the ’066 Patent but does not provide a detailed, element-by-element infringement analysis or a claim chart (Compl. ¶13). The following table summarizes a potential infringement theory for Claim 1 based on the information and visuals available in the complaint.
’066 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a die member coupled to the frame member, wherein the die member includes a plurality of orifices disposed within a plate; | The accused products are depicted with a front plate containing multiple openings, allegedly for inserting cannabis stems. | ¶11, p.5 | col. 13:4-6 |
| a first rotating cylindrical member... a second rotating member... supported by the frame member in a substantially vertical configuration | The products are alleged to be "cannabis bucker machines," which suggests an internal mechanism with rotating members to pull stems through the orifices. | ¶11 | col. 13:7-14 |
| ...defining a pinch region therebetween as a region across which the first and second circumferential surfaces are in the closest proximity... | The complaint does not provide specific evidence (e.g., internal diagrams) of the accused products' internal "pinch region" structure. | ¶13 | col. 13:13-16 |
| a rotation system including a motor and power source coupled to the frame member... | As powered commercial machines, the accused products inherently contain a motor and power source to drive their operation. | ¶11, p.5 | col. 13:17-20 |
| ...disposing the plurality of orifices within six inches of the pinch region. | The complaint does not provide specific measurements or technical evidence to substantiate this key dimensional limitation. | ¶13 | col. 13:21-23 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the accused products meet the specific dimensional limitation requiring the orifices to be "within six inches of the pinch region." The complaint does not offer direct evidence, such as technical diagrams or measurements, to support this. The precise mechanical nature and configuration of the accused products' internal rotating elements and how they create a "pinch region" will also be a key area of dispute.
- Scope Questions: The complaint's general allegation of infringement raises the question of which specific claims, both independent and dependent, will be the focus of litigation and how their scope will be defined relative to the accused technology.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "pinch region"
Context and Importance: This term is critical because a core limitation of the asserted patent—the "six inches" distance—is measured from it. The definition of where and how this region is formed will be central to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether the accused products' internal geometry falls within the patent's scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides a functional definition as "the linear region across which the two cylindrical rotating members are in closest proximity" (’066 Patent, col. 4:28-30). This language could support an interpretation covering various arrangements of rollers or wheels that are near each other.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's preferred embodiments repeatedly describe and illustrate the "pinch region" as the "contact point 52" between two compressed, pliable pneumatic tires (’066 Patent, col. 5:9-14; Fig. 4). This could support an argument that the term implies direct contact or compression, not merely proximity.
The Term: "rotating cylindrical member"
Context and Importance: The characteristics of this member (e.g., hard vs. pliable, smooth vs. treaded) are foundational to the claimed invention's operation. Whether the components in the accused products meet this definition will be a key point of contention.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the term broadly as "a member that has a cylindrical shape including a curved circumferential surface between two ends" which rotates on an axis (’066 Patent, col. 4:13-19). This could be argued to encompass any type of industrial roller or wheel.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification strongly emphasizes the advantages of using "pneumatic (inflatable) tires" which can have their pressure adjusted and "will conform to accommodate the shape of the vine" (’066 Patent, col. 4:57-58; col. 5:25-27). This focus could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to pliable or deformable members, especially for claims reciting such functionality.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of induced and contributory infringement, stating Defendants induce "Eteros stores and consumers" to infringe (Compl. ¶13). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements, such as citing instructional materials or user manuals that direct users to operate the accused products in an infringing manner.
- Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge of the patent. The complaint asserts that Defendants had knowledge of the patent's publication "as early as October 16, 2018 as evidenced by a patent notification letter" and that "numerous additional letters and email correspondence were sent" to Defendants regarding the patent (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 15).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Evidentiary Sufficiency: A primary issue will be one of evidentiary proof: can the Plaintiff produce evidence, not present in the initial complaint, to demonstrate that the internal mechanics of the accused "Eteros Buckers" satisfy the specific dimensional and structural limitations of the asserted claims, most notably the requirement that the stripping orifices are located "within six inches of the pinch region"?
- Definitional Scope: The case will likely involve a significant dispute over claim construction: will the term "pinch region" be interpreted broadly as any point of proximity between two rollers, or will it be narrowed by the specification's detailed description of two compressed, pliable tires in direct contact? The interpretation of this term could be dispositive for infringement.
- Willfulness and Pre-Suit Conduct: A key factual question will be one of intent: given the complaint’s allegation of specific pre-suit notice dating back to 2018, the court will have to examine the content of that notice and Defendants' conduct thereafter to determine if any infringement was willful, which could expose Defendants to a risk of enhanced damages.