DCT

2:23-cv-00284

Case Number NOT USED

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00284, W.D. Wash., 02/28/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having regular and established places of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s botanical extraction processes infringe patents related to methods for selectively extracting compounds from plant matter using super-cooled solvents to reduce chlorophyll co-extraction.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns ethanol-based extraction of desirable compounds (e.g., cannabinoids, terpenes) from plant material like cannabis or hemp, a critical process in the production of consumer and pharmaceutical goods.
  • Key Procedural History: The two asserted patents are part of the same family. A Certificate of Correction was issued for U.S. Patent No. 10,507,407 on March 28, 2023, one month after the complaint was filed. This corrected a significant error in asserted Claim 1, changing the language from requiring simultaneous contact at two distinct temperatures to requiring contact within a temperature range. The complaint was filed based on the pre-correction claim language.

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
2023-03-28 Certificate of Correction Issues for U.S. Patent 10,507,407

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 December 17, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that conventional methods for extracting compounds like cannabinoids from plants such as cannabis or hemp often use solvents that co-extract undesirable constituents, particularly plant lipids and chlorophyll (Compl. Ex. A, '407 Patent, col. 1:16-33). Removing these impurities requires expensive and complex post-extraction processing, and common hydrocarbon solvents pose safety risks due to their volatility ('407 Patent, col. 1:34-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method using a super-cooled solvent, specifically 100% grain ethanol, which is chilled to a temperature range of -30°C to -50°C. By also chilling the plant substrate and controlling the contact time, the process selectively extracts desired molecules (cannabinoids, terpenes) while leaving the less-soluble chlorophyll and lipids behind in the plant matter ('407 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-15). This aims to produce a cleaner initial extract that requires minimal further purification ('407 Patent, col. 1:59-62).
  • Technical Importance: This approach seeks to improve the efficiency and safety of botanical extraction by integrating the purification step into the primary extraction, thereby reducing the need for costly secondary processing.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶18). Its essential elements include:
    • A pre-processing step lowering a solvent's temperature to a range of -30°C and -50°C.
    • Contacting the solvent with a plant substrate at that temperature range to create an emulsion.
    • Evaporating the solvent to reduce the emulsion.
    • Recovering the solvent from the emulsion.
    • Purging the resulting extract so it is substantially free of lipids and chlorophyll.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶18).

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The ’248 Patent addresses the same technical problem as its parent ’407 Patent: the undesirable co-extraction of chlorophyll and lipids during botanical extraction and the hazards of certain solvents (Compl. Ex. B, ’248 Patent, col. 1:48-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The core of the solution remains the use of super-cooled solvents and plant matter to achieve selective extraction ('248 Patent, Abstract). However, the claims in this patent appear to broaden the invention to explicitly cover solvent compositions that are not 100% ethanol, including mixtures of ethanol with other solvents or alternative solvents like heptane or hexane ('248 Patent, col. 2:40-67; col. 24:19-24).
  • Technical Importance: This patent appears to extend the proprietary method to a wider array of solvent formulations that may be used in commercial extraction processes.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶27). Its essential elements include:
    • 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 substrate at that temperature range to create an emulsion.
    • Evaporating the solvent to reduce the emulsion.
    • Recovering the solvent from the emulsion.
    • Purging the resulting extract so it is substantially free of lipids and chlorophyll.
    • Wherein the solvent is optionally (a) 95% ethanol and 5% of another non-ethanol solvent, or (b) a solvent-like material such as heptane, hexane, isopropyl alcohol, or methanol.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶27).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is identified as "Helderpad's Ethanol Extraction, Solvent Recovery, & Short Path Distillation process" (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges this is a process used by Defendant for botanical extraction (Compl. ¶16). No specific details regarding the operational parameters of the process, such as operating temperatures, contact times, or solvent compositions, are provided in the main body of the complaint. The complaint references a URL for Defendant's process but does not include screenshots or other documentary evidence describing its function (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references Exhibits C and D, which it claims contain claim charts detailing the infringement of the ’407 and ’248 patents, respectively (Compl. ¶¶25, 34). These exhibits were not attached to the publicly filed complaint. Therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative.

Infringement Theory

The complaint alleges that Defendant's accused process directly infringes, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least Claim 1 of the ’407 Patent and Claim 1 of the ’248 Patent (Compl. ¶¶18, 27). The core of the infringement theory is that Defendant's process for ethanol-based extraction performs all the steps recited in the asserted claims, including pre-chilling a solvent, contacting it with plant matter at low temperatures, and subsequently processing the resulting extract to remove the solvent and impurities.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Factual Question: A central factual dispute will likely concern the actual operating parameters of Defendant's process. The court will require evidence establishing whether the accused process operates within the specific temperature range of -30°C to -50°C as required by the asserted claims.
  • Technical Question: The claims require a final "purging" step that results in an extract "substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll." A potential point of contention is what technical outcome the accused process achieves and whether it meets this claimed functional limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll" (from Claim 1 of both patents)

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the required outcome of the entire patented process and is a critical limitation for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition—whether qualitative or quantitative—will determine the standard of purity the accused process must achieve to infringe.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The body of the claims does not provide a numerical threshold, which may support an argument that "substantially free" is a qualitative term, meaning an amount low enough not to require significant further purification, or visually devoid of green coloration.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract of both patents states that the methods provide an extract "with a concentration of chlorophyll that is below 1%" ('407 Patent, Abstract; ’248 Patent, Abstract). A defendant may argue this phrase defines the scope of "substantially free" and imposes a specific, measurable limit that the accused process must meet.

  • Term: "a solvent that is another solvent that does not comprise ethanol" (from Claim 1(a) of the ’248 Patent)

    • Context and Importance: This phrase, part of a Markush group defining the claimed solvent, is awkwardly worded and may be subject to disputes over its scope and definiteness. The construction of this term is key to determining what solvent mixtures fall within the claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue this term is broad and covers any non-ethanol substance mixed with ethanol, including common denaturants or water, which acts as a solvent.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue the term "solvent" in this context implies a substance with particular chemical properties (e.g., an organic solvent) and does not cover any arbitrary non-ethanol substance. Dependent Claim 7, which depends from Claim 6 and ultimately Claim 1, specifies that the "non-ethanol solvent is water, methanol, isopropyl alcohol, or acetonitrile," which could be used to argue for a more defined scope for the term as used in the independent claim ('248 Patent, col. 24:66-67).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes general allegations of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶3), but it does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for a claim of induced infringement, nor does it identify any specific component sold for a claim of contributory infringement.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant has known of its infringement of both patents since at least October 31, 2020 (Compl. ¶¶20, 29). It further alleges that Defendant made no attempt to design around the patents and lacked a reasonable basis for believing the patents were invalid (Compl. ¶¶21-22, 30-31). These allegations form the basis for the request for enhanced damages.

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

The resolution of this case may depend on the following central questions:

  1. A Definitional Question: The dispute may turn on the construction of "substantially free of any lipids and chlorophyll". Will the court define this as a qualitative standard of purity or a quantitative one tied to the "below 1%" language in the patents' abstracts? The answer will set a critical benchmark for infringement.
  2. An Evidentiary Question: A primary issue for the court will be one of proof. What evidence can Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that Defendant’s commercial extraction process operates within the specific temperature range of -30°C to -50°C recited in the asserted claims?
  3. A Procedural Question: The complaint was filed one month before a Certificate of Correction was issued to fix a potentially invalidating error in Claim 1 of the ’407 Patent. A question for the court may be the legal status and enforceability of the claim as it was asserted in the original complaint.