Safe Foods Corp. wins major ruling in US poultry industry patent case

The ruling has implications for the entire poultry industry
calendar icon 21 December 2022
clock icon 2 minute read

A federal judge has invalidated the patent for a method of poultry preparation held by California-based Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. The ruling has implications for the entire poultry industry because Enviro Tech had sought to enforce its patent against major competitors that service most of the US poultry industry, according to a press release from Safe Foods.

"This ruling eviscerates Enviro Tech's patent and protects Safe Foods and others who provide crucial preparation services to the poultry industry," says Amir Alavi, name partner in Houston trial firm Alavi Anaipakos and lead counsel for Safe Foods. "We are exceptionally pleased with the court's ruling and, most of all, happy for our client."

The Dec. 15 ruling by US District Judge Lee P. Rudofsky of Little Rock, Arkansas, came after a claim construction hearing, also known as a Markmanhearing, in which the Judge was asked to rule on the meaning of the words in Enviro Tech's patent.

Enviro Tech's asserted patent claims a method directed to a step in the poultry preparation process that sanitizes the birds. After the birds are slaughtered and defeathered, they are soaked in a "chill tank" filled with a combination of sanitizing chemicals and near-freezing water. The primary sanitizing agent in the chill tank is peracetic acid. Enviro Tech's patent claims a method in which the pH level of the peracetic acid containing water is altered.

In its lawsuit, Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. v. Safe Foods Corporation, No. 4:21-CV-00601-LPR, Safe Foods took issue with five terms or phrases in Enviro Tech's patent's claims: (1) "determining the pH"; (2) "altering the pH"; (3) "after the step of"; (4) "about"; and (5) "antimicrobial amount."

On behalf of Safe Foods, Alavi Anaipakos argued that the meanings of the first three phrases were ambiguous and required claim construction. They also claimed that the last two terms were "indefinite," meaning that they were written in an unreasonably broad or vague manner, such that it becomes nearly impossible to tell what actions do and do not infringe that patent claim.

In his 32-page ruling, Judge Rudofsky agreed with Safe Foods' interpretation of all five terms in the patent, including finding that the final two terms were indefinite, which effectively invalidates Enviro Tech's patent.

In addition to Alavi, the Alavi Anaipakos attorneys representing Safe Foods include Scott W. Clark, Brian Simmons, Steve Jugle, Justin Chen, and Joshua Wyde.g

© 2000 - 2024 - Global Ag Media. All Rights Reserved | No part of this site may be reproduced without permission.