DCT

2:23-cv-00283

Capna IP Capital LLC v. Eden Labs LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00283, W.D. Wash., 02/28/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having regular and established places of business within the Western District of Washington.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ethanol extraction systems infringe patents related to methods for extracting select compounds from plant matter using super-cooled solvents to reduce the co-extraction of undesirable chlorophyll and lipids.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue resides in the field of botanical extraction, particularly for the cannabis and hemp industries, where producing a pure extract free of contaminants like chlorophyll is a key commercial objective.
  • Key Procedural History: The '407 Patent underwent a Certificate of Correction, issued March 28, 2023, to correct a typographical error in claim 1, changing the language from "contacting at -30 degrees C. and -50 degrees C." to "contacting at -30 degrees C. to -50 degrees C." This correction clarifies that the claimed temperature is a range, not two discrete points, which may be significant for the infringement analysis.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-04-14 Earliest Priority Date for '407 and '248 Patents
2019-12-17 U.S. Patent No. 10,507,407 Issues
2020-10-27 U.S. Patent No. 10,814,248 Issues
2020-10-31 Alleged date of Defendant's knowledge of infringement
2023-02-28 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,507,407 - "Methods to reduce chlorophyll co-extraction through extraction of select moieties essential oils and aromatic isolates," issued Dec. 17, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes how common methods for extracting cannabinoids and terpenes from plants like hemp and cannabis—using solvents like hydrocarbons or CO2—suffer from significant drawbacks, including safety risks from volatile solvents, high equipment costs, and, crucially, the co-extraction of undesirable plant lipids and chlorophyll, which requires difficult and expensive post-extraction purification steps (ʼ407 Patent, col. 1:19-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method using a super-cooled solvent, specifically 100% grain ethanol, and super-cooled plant material to selectively extract the desired compounds. By lowering the temperature of both the solvent and the plant substrate to a range of -30°C to -50°C, the process is designed to bypass the extraction of chlorophyll and lipids, which are less soluble at these cold temperatures, resulting in a cleaner initial extract (ʼ407 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-15). The process involves steps for pre-cooling, contacting the solvent and plant matter, evaporating the solvent, and purging the final extract (ʼ407 Patent, col. 8:13-27).
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to provide a safer and more efficient alternative to existing methods by yielding a high-purity extract directly, thereby reducing the need for extensive and costly post-processing (ʼ407 Patent, col. 1:57-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A pre-processing step lowering a solvent's temperature to a range of -30°C and -50°C.
    • Contacting the solvent with plant substrate at that same temperature range to create an emulsion.
    • Evaporating the emulsion via atmospheric evaporation of the solvent.
    • Recovering the solvent from the emulsion.
    • Purging the resulting extract so it is "substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶19).

U.S. Patent No. 10,814,248 - "Methods to reduce chlorophyll co-extraction through extraction of select moieties essential oils and aromatic isolates," issued Oct. 27, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation-in-part of the '407 Patent, the '248 Patent addresses the same fundamental problem: the undesirable co-extraction of chlorophyll and lipids during botanical extraction processes (ʼ248 Patent, col. 1:30-47).
  • The Patented Solution: The ʼ248 Patent expands upon the solution of the parent patent. While still centered on a super-cooled extraction process conducted between -30°C and -50°C, it broadens the types of solvents that can be used. The claims contemplate not only ethanol but also mixtures of ethanol with other solvents, or alternative solvents entirely, such as heptane, hexane, or isopropyl alcohol, while explicitly excluding the use of liquid carbon dioxide ('248 Patent, col. 2:8-20; col. 24:1-24).
  • Technical Importance: The invention aims to provide more flexibility in solvent choice for the cold extraction process, potentially accommodating different target compounds, regulatory environments, or cost considerations, while still achieving the primary goal of a chlorophyll-free extract ('248 Patent, col. 2:8-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶27).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A process that excludes the use of liquid carbon dioxide.
    • A pre-processing step lowering a solvent's temperature to a range of -30°C to -50°C.
    • Contacting the solvent with a cannabis or hemp plant substrate at that same temperature range.
    • Evaporating the emulsion via atmospheric evaporation.
    • Recovering the solvent.
    • Purging the extract under vacuum until it is substantially free of lipids and chlorophyll.
    • "wherein optionally," the solvent is either (a) a 95%/5% ethanol/non-ethanol mix or (b) a solvent-like material from the group of heptane, hexane, isopropyl alcohol, and methanol.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶27).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is identified as Defendant's "Coldfinger Ethanol Extraction system" (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are systems for ethanol-based extraction (Compl. ¶16). The complaint does not provide specific details on the operation of the accused system but alleges that by making, using, and selling these systems, Defendant practices the methods claimed in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶18, ¶27). The complaint alleges the Accused Products are available to businesses and individuals throughout the United States (Compl. ¶23, ¶32).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’407 Patent and claim 1 of the ’248 Patent (Compl. ¶18, ¶27). For a detailed element-by-element infringement analysis, the complaint refers to claim charts in Exhibits C and D, respectively (Compl. ¶25, ¶34). However, these exhibits were not included with the complaint as filed (Doc. 1). As such, the complaint itself does not provide a specific narrative mapping of claim elements to the functionality of the Accused Products.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Operational Parameters: A central factual question will be whether Defendant’s "Coldfinger Ethanol Extraction system" is used in a manner that operates within the specific temperature range of -30°C to -50°C as required by claim 1 of both patents. Evidence of the system's standard operating procedures, user manuals, and actual performance data will be critical.
    • Process Steps: It will be a matter of dispute whether the accused process includes steps corresponding to "atmospheric evaporation" and "purging under vacuum" as recited in the claims, or if it utilizes different techniques for solvent removal and extract purification.
    • Purity Standard: The infringement analysis for both patents will hinge on whether the extract produced by the accused system is "substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll." This raises a technical question of what level of purity meets that standard and a factual question of what level of purity the accused system actually achieves.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’407 and ’248 Patents:

  • The Term: "substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll"
  • Context and Importance: This term of degree is the qualitative endpoint of the claimed process and is central to the infringement analysis. The definition will set the threshold of purity an extract must achieve. A dispute is likely over whether this term implies a qualitative, visual standard (e.g., no green color) or a quantitative, measurable limit.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not provide a numerical value, which may support a more general, qualitative understanding that the extract is largely, but not entirely, devoid of these components (ʼ407 Patent, col. 8:26-27).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract of the '407 Patent states that embodiments provide an extract "with a concentration of chlorophyll that is below 1%." A party could argue this passage provides a specific, objective definition that informs the meaning of "substantially free" throughout the patent (ʼ407 Patent, Abstract).

For the ’248 Patent:

  • The Term: "wherein optionally"
  • Context and Importance: This term, which precedes the description of the solvent types in claim 1, is highly unusual in claim drafting. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation could be dispositive. The key question is whether it renders the subsequent solvent limitations non-essential (i.e., the claim covers any solvent used in the process) or if it means the process must use one of the specifically listed optional solvent categories.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (i.e., the solvent choice is not a limitation): The plain meaning of "optionally" suggests that the subsequent clauses (a) and (b) are not required elements for infringement.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (i.e., the solvent must be from list (a) or (b)): The structure of the claim, which is a continuation-in-part of a patent focused on 100% ethanol, suggests the purpose of this new claim is to cover specific alternative solvents. The use of "or" between subparts (a) and (b) may support an interpretation that "optionally" means the choice is between the listed options, not a choice to disregard the limitation entirely ('248 Patent, col. 24:20-24).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint's formal counts (Count I and Count II) are limited to allegations of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(a) (Compl. ¶18, ¶27).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been willful for both patents. The factual basis for this allegation is the assertion that Defendant has known that its activities infringed the patents "since at least October 31, 2020" (Compl. ¶20, ¶29).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of claim construction and scope: How will the court interpret the unusual term "wherein optionally" in claim 1 of the ’248 Patent? Whether this term makes the subsequent solvent descriptions a mandatory limitation (i.e., a choice between listed alternatives) or a truly optional feature will fundamentally alter the scope of the claim.

  2. A second core issue will be one of definitional standards: What is the meaning of an extract that is "substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll"? The case may turn on whether this is defined by the qualitative standard suggested by the claim language or the quantitative "below 1%" threshold suggested by the patent's abstract.

  3. A key evidentiary question will be one of factual proof: As the complaint lacks the referenced claim chart exhibits, a primary challenge for the plaintiff will be to produce evidence demonstrating that the accused "Coldfinger" system, as commercially operated, actually performs each step of the claimed methods—particularly the requirements for specific operating temperatures and the "atmospheric evaporation" step.