California-based strawberry grower faces sour ruling in patent dispute

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — One part of a legal struggle over strawberry patents died on the vine when a federal judge granted a motion for summary judgment in the case.

In a decision unsealed Monday, U.S. Chief District Judge Troy Nunley ruled in favor of California Berry Cultivars and Douglas Shaw in a patent infringement dispute. Driscoll’s Inc. sued in 2019, arguing that the defendants crossbred a patented plant in Spain and that it imported and used seeds in the U.S. that were grown on patented plants in that country.

The defendants said Driscoll’s had no evidence they imported or used seeds in the U.S. taken from a patented plant and that they couldn’t be liable for actions that occurred outside the country. The Barack Obama appointee pointed to those arguments as sufficient for his decision and opted against examining Driscoll’s additional points.

Addressing the first argument, Nunley wrote that a 2017 plan led to the undisputed shipment of seeds to Canada, where they were germinated and then brought to California.

“The court agrees with defendants that Driscoll’s fails to produce evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that a patented plant was used as a maternal plant in any given cross, or that defendants imported or used seeds from such a cross in the United States,” Nunley wrote.

According to the judge, it’s possible that a patented plant was used as a maternal plant. However, Driscoll’s didn’t convince him that it could prove — by a preponderance of the evidence, or over 50% — that such a plant was used in any given crossbreeding effort, or that the defendants imported and used the seeds from that cross.

A 2017 crossing plan did identify specific plants as maternal and paternal, though Driscoll’s didn’t push back against evidence that seeds from that plan went to Canada for germination.

“Driscoll’s vaguely argues a jury could discount [Cultivars’] position given the genetic evidence of progeny in California,” Nunley wrote. “However, Driscoll’s fails to cite any evidence that would allow the jury to arrive at that conclusion other than by pure speculation.”

Taking up the second argument by the defendants — crossbreeding in Spain — Nunley said he wasn’t convinced they could be liable for crossbreeding that occurred outside of the country. The applicable law, the judge wrote, pertains to actions that occur within the U.S.

Another prong of Driscoll’s argument relied on direct infringement. However, that argument didn’t survive because there’s no viable claim for it, as the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on accusations of importing seeds here and crossbreeding in Spain, Nunley wrote.

A third prong, which hinged on the exportation of uncombined parts of a patented invention, also failed.

“Defendants correctly point out that Driscoll’s cites no evidence that defendants supplied or caused to be supplied components of a patented invention ‘in or from the United States,” the judge ruled.

While the ruling favored the defendants, parts of the case remain alive.

California Berry Cultivars and Shaw have filed counterclaims against Driscoll’s. Nunley’s ruling resolved only some of them.

Both sides disagree on how to proceed with the counterclaims, and Nunley pointed to a lack of properly filed motions. He set a 30-day deadline from Monday for the parties to set a calendar for filing those motions, a motion seeking to set a schedule if they can’t agree, or a notice that they’re prepared for trial on the remaining counterclaims.

Attorneys for either side could not be immediately reached for comment.