DCT

1:24-cv-03051

Blueline Equipment Co LLC v. Kokanovic

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-03051, E.D. Wash., 04/05/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts that venue is proper in the Eastern District of Washington because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the dispute, including business dealings and the alleged acts of infringement, occurred within or were directed to the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its agricultural harvesters do not infringe the Defendants' patent related to an air blast soft fruit harvesting device, following pre-suit infringement allegations from the Defendants.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns air-based systems for mechanically harvesting soft fruits like berries, a method aimed at improving the efficiency and reducing the labor costs of large-scale agricultural operations.
  • Key Procedural History: The dispute arises from a prior business relationship where Plaintiff was a dealer for Defendants' patented harvesters. After the dealership contract expired, Plaintiff developed its own harvesting technology. The complaint alleges that Defendants, after viewing and photographing an experimental version of Plaintiff's new harvester, sent a cease-and-desist letter on July 14, 2023, and engaged in prolonged settlement negotiations while threatening litigation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-08-30 '195 Patent Priority Date
2016-05-24 '195 Patent Issue Date
2020-01-14 Dealership Contract between Plaintiff and Defendants' agent BSK began
2021-08-11 Plaintiff communicates design changes to Defendants' agent
2023-01-14 Dealership Contract expires
2023-03-XX Defendants' representative photographs Plaintiff's experimental harvester
2023-07-14 Defendants' counsel sends cease-and-desist letter to Plaintiff
2023-12-08 Plaintiff sends letter to Defendants' counsel disclaiming use of patented unit
2024-04-05 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,345,195 - “Air Blast Soft Fruit Harvesting Device,” issued May 24, 2016 (’195 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes conventional manual harvesting of soft fruits as "extremely hard work and involving a large number of workers" and notes that existing mechanical tree-shaking methods can damage the fruit (’195 Patent, col. 3:50-54, col. 4:49-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a device that uses directed, pulsating air blasts to dislodge ripe fruit from shrubs. A blower fan generates continuous airflow, which is channeled to a "pulsator" unit containing a rotating, partitioned "swivel pipe." This rotor alternately directs the air through different channels of an "air flow director," creating variable air pulses aimed at different heights on a shrub to shake fruit loose (’195 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:9-17). This system, depicted in assembly in Figure 63, is designed to be used in pairs, with one device on each side of a row of bushes.
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides a non-contact method for harvesting delicate fruits, aiming to increase speed and reduce labor costs compared to manual picking, while potentially causing less damage to the product than traditional mechanical shakers (’195 Patent, col. 3:40-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of all claims of the ’195 Patent by focusing on a specific "pulsator unit" limitation that it alleges is required by every claim (Compl. ¶¶72-73). The analysis centers on independent claim 1.
  • Independent Claim 1, Essential Elements:
    • A fan with a motor and an outlet channel.
    • A pulsator connected to the outlet channel, comprising a second motor and a rotor.
    • The rotor comprises a swivel pipe oriented perpendicular to the airflow.
    • The swivel pipe has: (i) a first pair of parallel openings, (ii) a second pair of parallel openings at a longitudinal distance from the first, and (iii) a partition along its longitudinal axis.
    • A director channel that receives air from the pulsator and has at least a first and a second physically separated sub-channel.
    • The air from the pulsator is discharged through the rotor into one or both of the sub-channel openings.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but does reserve the right to challenge the patent's validity (Compl. ¶76).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies an experimental harvester, referred to in a cease-and-desist letter as the "Blueline BH400 Berry Harvester" (Compl. ¶¶41, 49).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the harvesters Plaintiff purchased from Defendants' agent, which embodied the ’195 Patent, performed inadequately (Compl. ¶¶27, 29). In response, Plaintiff developed a "mechanical solution" referred to as a "slapper unit" or "pick head" to improve harvesting performance (Compl. ¶¶5, 30). Plaintiff asserts this slapper unit operates effectively without the patented pneumatic pulsator unit and that the accused experimental harvester utilizes this slapper unit but does not contain the Defendants' pulsator (Compl. ¶¶31, 41). The infringement dispute allegedly arose from a misunderstanding by Defendants' representative, who photographed the exterior housing of the experimental harvester and incorrectly concluded it contained the patented pulsator (Compl. ¶¶41, 49). The complaint references photographs taken by the BSK representative that allegedly show the housing of the experimental harvester (Compl. ¶49).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes Plaintiff's central argument: its accused products lack the specific, claimed "pulsator unit." The allegations are based on the non-infringement position articulated in the complaint.

'195 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a pulsator comprising a second motor and a rotor, Plaintiff's accused harvester does not contain the claimed pulsator unit; it uses a distinct "slapper unit," described as a mechanical solution. ¶¶30, 41, 74 col. 7:24-25
wherein the rotor comprises a swivel pipe wherein the longitudinal axis of the pipe is oriented perpendicular to the direction of airflow entering the pulsator, The accused harvester allegedly lacks the entire pulsator assembly, including the specifically claimed rotor and swivel pipe structure. ¶¶73-74 col. 7:26-27
the swivel pipe having i) a first pair of parallel openings, ii) a second pair of parallel openings located at a longitudinal distance from the first pair, and iii) a partition at a point along the longitudinal axis of the swivel pipe; Plaintiff denies that its harvester includes a component with this specific arrangement of openings and a partition, as it does not contain the claimed pulsator. ¶¶73-74 col. 7:28-38
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Question: The primary dispute appears to be factual: does the accused Blueline harvester contain a component that meets the structural limitations of the claimed "pulsator"? The complaint asserts that the housing on its experimental harvester, which was photographed by Defendants' agent, did not contain such a unit (Compl. ¶¶41, 50).
    • Technical Question: What is the operational principle of the "Blueline Equipment slapper unit"? The complaint describes it as a "mechanical solution" and a "pick head," suggesting a different mechanism from the patent's pneumatic "pulsator" (Compl. ¶¶5, 30). Evidence on the design and function of this unit will be critical.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "pulsator"
  • Context and Importance: Plaintiff identifies the "pulsator component" as the "only unique or novel part of the '195 Patent," and its entire non-infringement case is built on the absence of this specific unit in its accused products (Compl. ¶¶28, 73-74). The construction of this term, and whether it is limited to the specific structure recited in the claim, is central to the dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party seeking a broader scope might argue that "pulsator" should encompass any device that generates a pulsing action to dislodge fruit. However, the express limitations recited in the claim itself present a significant challenge to this position.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 provides a detailed definition of the term, stating a "pulsator" comprises "a second motor and a rotor," and further defining the rotor as comprising a "swivel pipe" with two distinct pairs of openings and an internal partition. The patent specification reinforces this narrow definition, stating, "The pulsator 2 comprises the rotor 32 positioned inside the case 45. The rotor 32 comprises the swivel pipe 19, two boxes 22, partition 31, hub 26 and hub 29" (’195 Patent, col. 7:24-27). This language may support an argument that the term is strictly limited to the recited structure.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint is for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.

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

  • A central issue will be evidentiary and factual: What components are actually inside the accused Blueline harvesters? The case may depend heavily on discovery and inspection to determine whether the "slapper unit" is, as Plaintiff alleges, a purely mechanical device, or if it contains structures that could be argued to meet the limitations of the claimed "pulsator."
  • The case will also present a core question of claim scope and equivalence: Assuming the accused "slapper unit" is structurally different from the claimed "pulsator," can the claim term "pulsator"—which is explicitly defined by its constituent parts in Claim 1—be construed to cover a mechanical "pick head"? The stark contrast drawn in the complaint between the patent's pneumatic system and Plaintiff's mechanical solution suggests the doctrine of equivalents will be a key battleground.