Precision Planting LLC v. Deere & Co

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-01046
• Patent #: 9,480,199
• Filed: May 31, 2019
• Petitioner(s): Precision Planting, LLC and AGCO Corp.
• Patent Owner(s): Deere & Company
• Challenged Claims: 1 and 3

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Seeding Machine Seed Delivery
• Brief Description: The ’199 patent describes an agricultural seeding machine intended to improve seed placement accuracy. The invention uses a seed meter to move seeds along a first path and a delivery system with two key features: a "blocking loading surface" to redirect seeds from the meter, and an "endless member" (such as a brush belt) to grip and control the seeds' descent to the ground, making placement less susceptible to field dynamics.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Hedderwick, Yamahata, and Koning - Claims 1 and 3 are obvious over Hedderwick in view of Yamahata and Koning.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hedderwick (U.K. Published Application No. GB 2,057,835A), Yamahata (Japanese Utility Model Laid-open Publication No. JP 56-24815), and Koning (Patent 4,193,523).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of these three prior art references, all from the field of agricultural seed planting, disclosed every element of the challenged claims. Hedderwick was presented as the primary reference, disclosing a base "precision seeder" with a vacuum seed meter (a metering disc with apertures) and a delivery system comprising an endless belt with fins contained within a housing. Petitioner contended that Yamahata taught the claimed "blocking loading surface" by disclosing a "seed guiding device" or "guide" that blocks seeds on a rotating seed meter and redirects them to prevent them from getting stuck. Finally, Petitioner asserted that Koning taught the claimed "delivery system" by disclosing a driven belt with "brush hairs" that actively grip seeds to control their movement and ensure uniform spacing, an improvement over Hedderwick's passive finned belt. For dependent claim 3, Petitioner argued Hedderwick explicitly disclosed using a pressure differential (vacuum) to retain seeds on its metering member.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references to solve known problems in the art. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Yamahata's seed guide into Hedderwick's system to address the known issue of seeds getting stuck in the apertures of vacuum seed meters, thereby improving the reliability of seed release. Furthermore, a POSITA seeking finer control over seed spacing would have been motivated to replace Hedderwick's finned belt, which allows seeds to bounce within cells, with Koning's brush belt, which actively holds seeds to ensure their velocity is defined and spacing is uniform until the moment of discharge.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success, as the combination involved applying known techniques (a seed guide and a brush belt) to a known type of device (a precision seeder) to achieve the predictable benefits of improved seed release and spacing control.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that the term "delivery system" in claim 1 should be construed as a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. §112(6). Petitioner contended the claim uses the generic nonce term "system" and recites purely functional language—"which moves the individual seeds in a second path..."—without sufficient corresponding structure.
• Based on this, Petitioner proposed the following construction:
  • Function: "moving individual seeds in a second path from a release position to a discharge position adjacent a seed furrow formed in soil beneath a seeding machine"
  • Structure: "(1) a brush belt with bristles, or a belt with other materials, that grips the seeds; a housing that contains the belt and has an upper opening and a lower opening; and drive and idler pulleys around which the belt rotates; and (2) equivalent structures thereof."
• This construction was central to Petitioner's argument, as it allowed for mapping the combination of Hedderwick's housing and pulleys with Koning's brush belt directly onto the required structure for the "delivery system" limitation.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1 and 3 of the ’199 patent as unpatentable.