On June 18, 2024, the Federal Court (per McHaffie J.) held that a patent for a computer system used to collect and process agricultural data was invalid for anticipation and obviousness.
Agi Suretrack, LLC v. Farmers Edge Inc., 2024 FC 934
Background
Canadian Patent No 2,888,742 (the “742 Patent”) entitled “Farming Data Collection and Exchange System” is owned by the Plaintiff, which, at the date of trial, was known as Farmobile LLC (“Farmobile”). Farmobile later merged into AGI Suretrack LLC. The Patent pertains to devices and computer systems to harvest and process agricultural data. Of particular importance to the ’742 Patent and to this case were the role of a relay device for relaying data from a farming implement, and the way in which the device or system stores and uses information in an implement profile to understand the data.
Farmobile alleged that the Defendant, Farmer’s Edge Inc. (“Farmers Edge), infringed the 742 Patent by selling their CanPlug device and associated FarmCommand computer systems. Farmers Edge, conversely, denied infringement and counterclaimed for a declaration of invalidity.
Claim Construction
The Court construed the claims from the perspective of a person skilled in the art (“POSITA”) in view of the common general knowledge (“CGK”) as of the publication date. The POSITA was held to be a person familiar with computer programming, with experience in agriculture and an understanding of how computer programs are used in agriculture. The CGK would have included an understanding of standard practice and terms of art used in both agriculture and computer programming.
In Canada, CGK, as confirmed recently by the FCA in Gemac Trust v Genpak Corporation, 2022 FCA 141, is “the knowledge generally known by the POSITA at the relevant time, as well as what they could have reasonably have found out.” CGK does not cover all prior art or everything the skilled person may be able to find out by a reasonably diligent search. Rather, knowledge only becomes part of the CGK “where it is generally known and accepted without question by the bulk of those who area engaged in the particular art.”
Each party led expert evidence to help the Court construe the claims in view of the CGK. The Court preferred the evidence given by the Plaintiff’s expert (Ault) on most of the construction issues because it was consistent with an ISO standard in force at the relevant time and withstood cross-examination. By contrast, the Defendant’s expert (Edwards) seldom referenced the ISO standard and refused to concede that the CGK of a skilled reader would have included knowledge of some defined terms contained within it.
Anticipation
Farmer’s Edge alleged that certain claims of the 742 Patent were anticipated by an agricultural tool sold by John Deere, that was available to the public in Canada or elsewhere prior to the claim date. That device, known as a GreenStar 3 2630 Display (the “Device”), could be installed in the cab of agricultural equipment to display information to the user, record farming activity, and control vehicles and implements. It was also known to be compatible with the ISO 11783 standard.
Farmobile argued that the Device because did not “disclose” the subject-matter of the invention because the coding used by John Deere is a trade secret. The Court rejected this argument because the Device nonetheless made the claimed subject-matter available to the public as of the claim date. A skilled person would have known that an ISO compliant-device would have been able to communicate with the implement sending that data, thereby using a “communication profile” as set out in the claims.
The Court preferred the evidence given by Mr. Ault because it was consistent with his testimony on other issue and persuasive, whereas Dr. Edwards’ evidence was held to be inconsistent with his testimony on construction and infringement. The Court found that the Device disclosed and enabled all but four of the disputed claims in the 742 Patent. As such, those claims were held to be anticipated by the prior art.
Obviousness
The Court held that a “single inventive concept” ran through the claims of the 742 Patent, namely “computer technologies for collecting and processing agronomic data involving (a) the use of stored information (manufacturer code, device class, version, communication protocol) about a “known” implement to automatically recognize the farming implement being used and know how it communicates data; (b) the use of data sent by the implement to determine operating events and a travel path; and (c) the automatic identification of the land on which farming is happening.” Each claim also had a “specific inventive concept” based on the manner of implementing the “broader inventive concept”.
The Court found that there was no difference between the state of the art and the inventive concept of each disputed claim, and that no inventive effort would have been required to arrive at the subject-matter of the invention. As such, the four claims that had not been found invalid for anticipation were nonetheless invalid for obviousness.
Relevance of Prior US Litigation
The US equivalent patent had been held invalid prior to this decision. Each party referred to the positions taken by the other in the Nebraska Litigation, claiming that those positions should be considered inconsistent with the positions taken in this action.
The parties filed documents from the Nebraska Litigation, including pleadings, transcripts of submissions, expert reports from Mr. Ault and Dr. Edwards, and decisions of the Nebraska Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Farmolbile’s US counsel also testified at the Canadian trial.
The Court addressed the parties’ arguments regarding the US case in its Reasons, but held that “is more appropriate and efficient to simply address the Canadian issues on their merits, rather than with reference to the parties’ respective positions in Nebraska. Thus, Farmers Edge must establish that all aspects of the claims of the ’742 Patent were not novel and/or are uninventive, regardless of whether Farmobile previously insisted to the Nebraska Court that they were in the prior art.”
Motion to Reopen Trial
While the Court’s decision was under reserve, Farmobile filed a motion to for an order requiring Farmers Edge to serve a further affidavit of documents, to reattend for discovery, and to re-open the trial to permit the parties to file further evidence. The motion was based on allegations that Farmers Edge had produced evidence in parallel litigation in Nebraska that had not been produced in Canada.
Farmers Edge opposed the motion, asserting that all the evidence was irrelevant, known to Farmobile at an earlier date, or would not have impacted the outcome of the trial.
The Court held that the new evidence raised by Farmobile could not possibly have affected the result, regardless of its relevance or earlier discoverability. The Court therefore dismissed the motion, without costs.
Disposition
The infringement action was dismissed and the invalidity counterclaim was granted in part. The asserted claims of the 742 Patent were declared to be invalid and thus not infringed. The Court directed the parties to file costs submissions within twenty days.