IP Law Daily, PATENT—N.D. Tex.: Developer of rose varieties stated claim for willful infringement, (Jun 9, 2025)
Law Firms Mentioned:Frost Brown Todd LLP | Ye & Associates, P.C.
Organizations Mentioned:David Austin Roses Ltd. | Frost Brown Todd, LLC | GCM Ranch LLC
By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.
Willful infringement was plausibly alleged because the complaint did not just allege the competitor’s flowers looked identical, but also that they were genetically identical and were asexually reproduced from the patented flowers.
A developer and seller of patented rose varieties stated a claim for willful infringement against a competitor, the U.S. District Court in Dallas has held. It was plausibly alleged that the competitor’s roses were asexually reproduced from the developer’s (David Austin Roses Limited. v. GCM Ranch LLC, No. 3:24-cv-00882-B (N.D. Tex. Jun 4, 2025)).
David Austin Roses Limited (Austin) was a developer and seller of patent-protected varieties of roses. Austin alleged that GCM Ranch, LLC (GCM) willfully infringed nine of its plant patents and violated the Lanham Act by selling identical roses. GCM moved to dismiss and the patent infringement claims of the original complaint were dismissed with leave to amend. Austin filed an amended complaint and GCM moved again to dismiss the willful patent infringement claim.
Willful infringement. The court found that, in the amended complaint, Austin had gone beyond the mere allegation of physical resemblance between the allegedly infringing plants and the original plants, which would not be sufficient to state a claim. Instead, Austin had alleged not just the same appearance but also the same characteristics, such as plant structure, and the same DNA recovered from testing of the different roses. Austin’s complaint also explained how such roses could only be produced by asexual reproduction, which is required to infringe a plant patent, and specifically alleged that the plants were produced by root cutting or grafting. On the element of knowledge of the patent, GCM argued only that Austin did not adequately allege infringement, so the court did not address whether or not GMC was aware of the patents at the time of the alleged infringement.
The court denied the motion to dismiss.
The Case is No. 3:24-cv-00882-B.
Judge: Boyle, J.
Attorneys: Amy E. LaValle (Frost Brown Todd LLP) for David Austin Roses Ltd. Jingjing Ye (Ye & Associates, P.C.) for GCM Ranch LLC.
Companies: David Austin Roses Ltd.; GCM Ranch LLC
Cases: Patent TexasNews