IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Deere unable to overturn jury’s finding that competitor did not infringe seed planting patents, (Jan 24, 2025)

By Cheryl Beise, J.D.

Evidence at trial supported the jury’s noninfringement finding and the district court did not allow defendants to argue a different claim construction mid-trial.

The federal district court in Delaware did not err in rejecting Deere & Co.’s post-trial motions seeking to overturn a jury verdict finding that products manufactured by AGCO Corp. and Precision Planting, LLC did not infringe Deere’s seed planting patents, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had determined. The noninfringement verdict was not against the weight of the evidence; an AGCO patent was not improperly excluded; and the court did not allow an inconsistent claim construction (Deere & Co. v. AGCO Corp., No. 23-1811 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2025)).

Deere & Co. (“Deere”) sued AGCO Corp. and Precision Planting, LLC (collectively, “AGCO”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,813,663 (the ’663 patent) and 9,699,955 (the ’955 patent), and other patents not at issue on appeal. The patents relate to high-speed agricultural planting technology and methods for planting seeds. The accused products were AGCO’s SpeedTube and vSet2 products and AGCO planters that contain the SpeedTube and vSet2.

After a four-day trial, the jury found that AGCO did not infringe Deere’s patents. Because the jury found that AGCO did not infringe the asserted claims, and in accordance with the instructions on the verdict sheet, did not reach Precision’s invalidity counterclaim. The district court denied Deere’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on infringement and a new trial on infringement. Deere appealed.

New trial. Deere argued that the district court erred in denying its motion for a new trial on infringement. Deere maintained (1) that the noninfringement verdict was against the weight of the evidence; (2) that the district court’s exclusion of AGCO’s U.S. Patent No. 8,985,037 (the ’037 patent) was prejudicial error; and (3) that the district court’s mid-trial claim construction rulings were erroneous.

The Federal Circuit was not persuaded. First, the appellate court found that AGCO presented ample evidence, including expert testimony, that the accused products removed the seeds not by capturing them (as the asserted claims require), but rather, by projecting and accelerating them.

The district court also did not abuse its discretion in excluding the ’037 patent under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. the district court carefully weighed the probative value of the ’037 patent against countervailing considerations, such as the possible need for a “mini trial” to determine whether the feeder wheels described in the ’037 patent are the same as the feeder wheels in the accused products.

Finally, the Federal Circuit found no error in the district court’s mid-trial claim construction rulings. The Federal Circuit did not agree that the district court had modified its construction of the seed-delivery-system terms during trial. The district court’s construction of the seed-delivery-system terms at claim construction was the same construction read to the jury. The “no disclaimer” language was not part of the district court’s construction of the seed-delivery-system terms. This language merely indicated that the district court rejected AGCO’s disclaimer argument. AGCO’s arguments were consistent with the district court’s claim construction of the seed-delivery-system terms, the court found.

JMOL on infringement. Deere argued that the district court improperly denied its JMOL on infringement. The district court concluded that Deere forfeited its right to seek JMOL on infringement and also denied Deere’s motion on its merits. The Federal Circuit found that the district court correctly concluded that Deere failed to move for JMOL on infringement under Rule 50(a) before the close of evidence. Given this determination, the appellate court did not address the merits of the district court’s denial.

The district court’s post-trial ruling was affirmed.

The Case is No. 23-1811.

Judge: Prost, S.

Attorneys: John C. O'Quinn (Kirkland & Ellis LLP) for Deere & Co. Michael Jennings Summersgill (Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP) for AGCO Corp. and Precision Planting LLC.

Companies: Deere & Co.; AGCO Corp.; Precision Planting, LLC

Cases: Patent FedCirNews DelawareNews