ecoNugenics, Inc. v. Bioenergy Life Science, Inc.

Background

ecoNugenics brought a patent-infringement action against Bioenergy Life Science, Inc. (Bioenergy), Chengzhi Life Sciences Company, Ltd. (Chengzhi), and Zhejiang Gold Kropn Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (Gold Kropn). The asserted patents concern modified citrus pectin and modified alginate, including methods involving treatment of poisoning or disease, immune response, inflammation, and fibrosis.

According to the complaint, Gold Kropn manufactured modified citrus pectin, Chengzhi purchased it in China and imported it into the United States, and Bioenergy sold it under the name ZyPect. ecoNugenics alleged direct, induced, and contributory patent infringement based on the defendants’ manufacture, importation, sale, and promotion of the product.

Bioenergy moved to dismiss the claims against it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that ecoNugenics had not plausibly pleaded infringement and that the asserted patents claimed subject matter ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. ecoNugenics opposed that motion and separately moved for partial summary judgment seeking a ruling that the asserted patent claims were directed to patent-eligible subject matter.

Infringement Claims

The court held that ecoNugenics failed to plausibly plead direct infringement. The asserted method claims required administering modified pectin or alginate to a mammal and, for some claims, binding substances such as heavy metals or galectin-3. But ecoNugenics alleged that laboratory testing showed Bioenergy’s product was not modified citrus pectin with the ability to enter mammalian circulation and bind heavy metals and galectin-3. The court concluded that this allegation made the direct-infringement claims implausible.

The court also dismissed the induced-infringement claims. Induced infringement requires an underlying act of direct infringement, and the court concluded that ecoNugenics had not plausibly alleged that necessary predicate.

The court dismissed the contributory-infringement claims for the same reason. In addition, it concluded that ecoNugenics had not plausibly alleged that Bioenergy’s product lacked substantial noninfringing uses. The complaint alleged that modified citrus pectin had been used for many years and that Bioenergy promoted ZyPect for uses beyond those addressed in the asserted patents.

Patent Eligibility

The court declined to address Bioenergy’s argument that the asserted patents did not claim patent-eligible subject matter because it had already concluded that ecoNugenics failed to plausibly plead infringement claims against Bioenergy.

The court denied ecoNugenics’s motion for partial summary judgment. It cited the general rule that summary judgment ordinarily is proper only after the nonmoving party has had adequate time for discovery. The order did not decide whether the asserted patent claims were patent-eligible.

Disposition

The court’s order states that Bioenergy’s motion to dismiss was GRANTED, ecoNugenics’s motion for partial summary judgment was DENIED, and ecoNugenics’s claims against Bioenergy were DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The opinion does not state a disposition of ecoNugenics’s claims against Chengzhi or Gold Kropn.