DCT
2:00-cv-03048
Windflower Farms Inc v. Costco Wholesale Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Windflower Farms, Inc. (Washington) and Bruce and Melaine Morford
- Defendant: Costco Wholesale, Inc. (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stratton Ballew PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:00-cv-03048, E.D. Wash., 06/30/2000
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant having a warehouse and conducting business within the Eastern District of Washington.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s sale of decorative wreaths containing preserved hop plants infringes a patent directed to a method for preserving hop plants.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to methods for preserving plants, particularly large vine-type plants like hops, for long-term ornamental and decorative use.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the inventors, Bruce and Melaine Morford, have granted a license to the co-plaintiff, Windflower Farms, Inc., to practice the patent-in-suit. No other prior litigation or administrative proceedings are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1995-11-29 | ’150 Patent Priority Date |
| 1998-08-25 | ’150 Patent Issue Date |
| 2000-06-30 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 5,798,150 - "PRESERVATION OF HOP PLANTS AND PLANT MATERIAL"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,798,150, "PRESERVATION OF HOP PLANTS AND PLANT MATERIAL", issued August 25, 1998.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Prior methods of preserving large plants, especially vining plants like hops, required harvesting and transport to a processing location. This movement often resulted in damage such as crimping or kinking of the plant's stems, which impeded or blocked the plant's vascular system (xylem) from absorbing the preservative solution, leading to an incomplete or failed preservation (’150 Patent, col. 1:34-47).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method that avoids transport-related damage by preserving the plant while it remains supported in its "natural configuration." The process involves severing the plant from its root system and immediately immersing the cut stem into a preservative solution (e.g., one containing glycerine) while the plant remains on its support structure, such as a trellis (’150 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:40-54). This maintains the integrity of the plant's vascular system, enabling efficient and complete uptake of the preservative throughout the entire plant.
- Technical Importance: The method enables the successful preservation of large, intact, and unwieldy plants like hop bines, which can be eighteen to twenty feet long, for ornamental purposes—a result the patent asserts was not satisfactorily achieved by prior methods (’150 Patent, col. 2:20-24, col. 2:37-41).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’150 Patent (Compl. ¶11). The patent contains two independent claims, 1 and 11.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a preserved floral product prepared by a process comprising the essential elements of:
- selecting a living, hop plant material;
- supporting the selected hop plant material, to maintain it in a natural configuration;
- severing the hop plant material from its root system, completely exposing a cross sectional surface of the stem, stalk, trunk or vine; and
- exposing the cross sectional surface to a glycerine containing preservative solution, while the plant material is maintained in the natural configuration, so that the plant material uptakes the solution.
- Independent Claim 11 recites a preserved hop plant for use as a floral product prepared by a process comprising the essential elements of:
- providing a hop plant;
- supporting the selected hop plant, to maintain said hop plant in a natural configuration;
- severing the hop plant completely exposing a cross sectional surface of a stem; and
- exposing the cross sectional surface of the severed hop plant into a glycerine containing preservative solution, so that said hop plant uptakes the preservative solution.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are "floral products, and specifically wreaths, containing preserved hop plant material" sold by Defendant Costco Wholesale, Inc. (Compl. ¶9). The complaint alleges the hop plant material was preserved by a third party, Weaver Flower Company (Compl. ¶9).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as decorative wreaths sold to Costco customers (Compl. ¶9, ¶12). It does not provide any technical details about the specific preservation process used by Weaver Flower Company to create the preserved hop material. The complaint alleges that Costco's sales of these products have caused Plaintiffs to be damaged (Compl. ¶14).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart or specific factual allegations mapping the accused process to the claim elements. The following table summarizes the infringement theory based on the general allegations in the complaint.
’150 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a. selecting a living, hop plant material; | The complaint alleges the accused wreaths contain "preserved hop plant material" which, by implication, originated as living hop plants. | ¶9, ¶11 | col. 3:28-29 |
| b. supporting the selected hop plant material, to maintain said hop plant material in a natural configuration; | The complaint does not contain specific facts regarding how the hop material was supported during preservation, but generally alleges that the resulting products embody the patented invention. | ¶11 | col. 3:40-45 |
| c. severing the hop plant material from a root system... completely exposing a cross sectional surface of the stem, stalk, trunk or vine; and | The complaint does not describe the severing step used in the accused process but alleges infringement of the patented method. | ¶11 | col. 4:47-49 |
| d. exposing the cross sectional surface of the hop plant material to a glycerine containing preservative solution, while said hop plant material is maintained in the natural configuration, so that said hop plant material uptakes the preservative solution. | The complaint alleges the hop material in the accused wreaths is "preserved," implying it was exposed to a preservative solution that it uptook. No details are provided on the solution's composition or the timing of exposure. | ¶9, ¶11 | col. 4:55-58 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Question: The primary issue is the absence of factual detail in the complaint describing the actual preservation process used by Weaver Flower Company. The complaint makes conclusory allegations of infringement without providing any evidence that the accused process meets the specific steps of the asserted claims.
- Scope Question: A central dispute may revolve around whether the process used to create the hop material for the wreaths involved "supporting the... plant material... in a natural configuration" during preservation. Infringement will depend on evidence showing that the preservation was conducted in a manner that maintained the plant's structural integrity as described in the patent, rather than, for example, preserving harvested and transported cuttings.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "natural configuration"
- Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention, distinguishing it from prior art that involved transporting harvested plants. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the accused preservation process maintained the hop plant in its "natural configuration." Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could either limit the claims to in-field preservation on a trellis or allow for a broader range of post-harvest support methods.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the term as "the spatial relationship between its individual branches and vines" and states that changing it results in "crimping, kinking or damage" (’150 Patent, col. 1:41-45). This could support an interpretation where any method of support that prevents such damage meets the limitation, even if the plant is moved.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example: "the configuration of the plant grown on a trellis is maintained, by leaving the plant on the trellis" (’150 Patent, col. 3:43-45). This suggests the term could be construed more narrowly to mean leaving the plant on its original support structure during preservation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of contributory and inducement infringement without providing any specific facts to support the claims (Compl. ¶11). It does not allege, for example, that Costco had knowledge of the specific preservation process used by its supplier or that it took any active steps to encourage that supplier to use an infringing method.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement is "intentional, knowing, willful, and deliberate" (Compl. ¶13). However, it does not plead any specific facts to support this allegation, such as evidence of pre-suit notice of the patent or other circumstances demonstrating egregious conduct by the Defendant.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be one of evidence: what preservation process was actually used by the third-party manufacturer, Weaver Flower Company? The complaint’s lack of factual detail on this point suggests that discovery into the manufacturer's methods will be the central factual battleground of the case.
- The case will also turn on a question of claim scope: what is the proper construction of the limitation "supporting the... hop plant material in a natural configuration"? Whether this requires preserving the plant in situ on its original trellis, or can be satisfied by other methods of support after harvesting, will be a determinative legal question for infringement.