IP Law Daily, PATENT—E.D. Ark.: Summary judgment of non-infringement granted in potting soil dispute., (Aug 26, 2022)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

A potting soil did not infringe on a patent for products made from digested fiber and solvent because it contained no solvent.

A patentee for a potting soil could not show the existence of a dispute of material fact after claim construction, the U.S. District Court in Little Rock, Arkansas has held. The construction order precluded a finding of infringement because pine bark could not be considered a solvent (CCD Holdings, LLC v. Cenergy USA, Inc., August 23, 2022, Moody, J.).

CCD Holdings, LLC (CCD) was the owner of U.S. Patents Nos. 8,893,652 (the “652 Patent”), 8,894,879 (the “879 Patent”), and 10,244,730, all of which claimed products such as animal bedding made with a solvent and a lignocellulosic fiber that has been processed by ruminant digestion and anaerobic digestion. CCD filed suit against Cenergy USA and its co-defendants (Cenergy) claiming that Cenergy’s “Magic Dirt” potting soil products infringed the asserted patents. After claim construction, Cenergy moved for summary judgment of non-infringement.

Infringement. At claim construction, the court construed the term “solvent” to mean “a substance combined with the lignocellulosic fiber, and which dissolves or disperses one or more other substances.” Each of the asserted claims required that a solvent be added to lignocellulosic fiber that has been processed by ruminant digestion and anaerobic digestion, which the parties called AD Fiber. The accused product was a potting soil consisting of AD Fiber to which pine bark was added. CCD argued that it needed additional time for discovery to determine if any solvents were used in the AD Fiber process. The court held that under the language of the patent claims it was only solvent added after the anaerobic digestion process that would be relevant, and it was clear from the record that the only thing added after that process was complete was pine bark. Because pine bark could not be considered a solvent, there was no genuine question of material fact. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Cenergy.

The case is No. 4:19-cv-00102-JM.

Attorneys: Jennifer Lynn Mozwecz (SRM Law, PC) for CCD Holdings, LLC. Joseph Davidson Calhoun, III (Calhoun Law Firm) for Cenergy USA, Inc. John Richard Keville (Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP) for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Companies: CCD Holdings, LLC; Cenergy USA, Inc.; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Cases: Patent ArkansasNews