In Re Farmland Industries, Inc.

548 F. Supp. 2d 1326
CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedMarch 12, 2008
Docket8:05-cv-00587
StatusPublished

This text of 548 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (In Re Farmland Industries, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Farmland Industries, Inc., 548 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (M.D. Fla. 2008).

Opinion

(2008)

In re FARMLAND INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., n/k/a/ Reorganized FLI, Inc., Debtors.
J.P. Morgan Trust Company, National Association, in its capacity as Trustee of the FI Liquidating Trust, Plaintiff,
v.
White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc., d/b/a PCS Phosphate/White Springs, and PCS Sales (USA), Inc., Defendants.

No. 3:05-cv-587-J-32JRK.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division.

March 12, 2008.

MARKMAN ORDER[1]

TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge.

This case pertains to a patented process for "enhancing the color of and stabilizing wet process phosphoric acid" for use in liquid fertilizer. United States Patent No. 4,808,391. ("'391 Patent"). The purpose of the patented process, which involves chemical oxidation and reduction steps, is to "produce a marketable product having color, clarity, and stability characteristics acceptable to the consumer both before and after conversion into liquid fertilizer... produc[ing] a very desirable, greencolored stabilized acid [called green superphosphoric acid ('green SPA')] from less desirable black acid." '391 Patent col.1 ll.12-20. The two independent claims of the '391 Patent, claims 1 and 20, are set forth here:

Claim 1

1. A process for preparing color-enhanced and stabilized wet-process phosphoric acid comprising the steps of:
providing a quantity of black-colored wet-process phosphoric acid which has a P2O5 concentration of from about 58-72%, and contains incidental carbonaceous and metallic impurities therein;
subjecting said quantity of phosphoric acid to an initial oxidation step in order to produce a decarbonized, oxidized acid, said initial oxidation step including the steps of heating the acid to a temperature of from about 400 to 525° F, agitating the acid and adding an oxidizing agent to the acid,
said initial oxidation step being carried out until the acid changes color from black and when diluted 1:100 by weight with deionized water exhibits an EMF of greater than about 700 mv, as compared with a standard solution of 0.01 M potassium dichromate having an EMF of 600 mv;
thereafter subjecting the initially oxidized acid to a secondary reduction step for reducing the dark-colored oxidized metal complexes in the acid and producing a stabilized green color in the acid,
said secondary reduction step being carried out until the acid again changes color and when diluted 1:100 by weight with deionized water exhibits an EMF of less than about 700 mv, as compared with said standard solution.

Claim 20

20. A process for treating black colored wet-process phosphoric acid comprising the steps of:
providing a quantity of black wet-process phosphoric acid having a P2O5 concentration of from about 58-72%, and incidental carbonaceous and metallic impurities therein;
subjecting said quantity of phosphoric acid to an oxidation step in order to produce a decarbonized, oxidized acid, said initial oxidation step including the steps of heating the acid to a temperature of from about 400 to 525° F., agitating the acid, and adding an oxidizing agent to the acid,
said oxidation step being carried out until the acid changes color from black and assumes a dark greenish-brown to purple color and the acid when diluted 1:100 by weight with deionized water exhibits an EMF of greater than about 700 mv as compared with a standard solution of 0.01M potassium dichromate having an EMF of 600 mv.

The '391 Patent was issued to Farmland Industries, Inc. ("Farmland") as assignee on February 28, 1989. In May 2002, Farmland filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and in May 2004, the plaintiff in this case, J.P. Morgan Trust Company, National Association ("J.P.Morgan") was appointed as Liquidating Trustee of the Fl ("Farmland Industries") Liquidating Trust. J.P. Morgan filed the present infringement action in June 2005 against defendant White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc., d/b/a PCS Phosphate/White Springs, and PCS Sales (USA), Inc. (collectively "White Springs")[2] seeking damages for alleged infringement from White Springs for the period between 1998 and May 2007, when the '391 Patent expired.[3]

This matter is before the Court for patent claim construction, as described in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996). The Court has considered the briefs of the parties and accompanying exhibits (Docs.163, 164, 172, 173, 193, 195), the parties' joint claim construction statement and attachments (Doc. 157), the parties' joint claim construction chart (Doc. 190), tutorials submitted by each party, as well as argument of counsel at a Markman hearing held on February 27, 2008, the record of which is incorporated herein.

I. Claim Construction Standards

"It is a `bedrock principle' of patent law that `the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.'" Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., '381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed.Cir.2004)). "[C]laim construction analysis must begin and remain centered on the claim language itself, for that is the language the patentee has chosen to `particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[] the subject matter which the patentee regards as his invention.'" Innova/Pure Water, Inc., 381 F.3d at 1116 (citation omitted). "[T]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning .... [T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court has recently reviewed and applied the Federal Circuit's teachings on claim construction, see Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. Ciba Vision Corp., ___ F.Supp.3d ___, ___-___, 2008 WL 341549, at **3-5 (M.D.Fla.2008), and follows that same procedure here.

III. Claim Construction

The parties' proposed constructions[4] and the Court's determination as to each claim term construction is as follows.

A. Claim Construction

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Farmland's                          White Springs'
                                            Proposed                            Proposed                           Court's
     Claim Term                            Construction                       Construction                       Construction
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"the steps of ... heating              No claim construction

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

MBO Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.
474 F.3d 1323 (Federal Circuit, 2007)
Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corporation
156 F.3d 1182 (Federal Circuit, 1998)
On Demand MacHine Corp. v. Ingram Industries, Inc.
127 S. Ct. 683 (Supreme Court, 2006)
Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Rhode Island
127 S. Ct. 673 (Supreme Court, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
548 F. Supp. 2d 1326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-farmland-industries-inc-flmd-2008.