In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation
301 F.3d 1343 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A patent claim for a process is invalid as anticipated if the prior art discloses all the steps of the process, even if the patentee was the first to discover a new, inherent property or benefit of that known process.
Facts:
- Researchers at Johns Hopkins University discovered that certain cruciferous sprouts, such as broccoli and cauliflower, contain high concentrations of glucosinolates, which have cancer-fighting properties (high Phase 2 enzyme-inducing potential).
- They observed that these beneficial compounds are significantly more concentrated in sprouts harvested before the two-leaf stage compared to mature plants.
- Based on this discovery, Johns Hopkins University obtained several patents claiming methods of preparing food products by selecting seeds of certain cruciferous plants that produce sprouts rich in these compounds.
- Johns Hopkins University exclusively licensed these patents to Brassica Protection Products LLC.
- For many years prior to the patent filing, numerous publications, such as cookbooks and agricultural guides, described the practice of germinating, harvesting, and consuming the very same types of cruciferous sprouts (broccoli, cauliflower, etc.) as a food source.
- Sunrise Farms and other defendants were engaged in the business of growing and selling these cruciferous sprouts for human consumption.
Procedural Posture:
- Brassica Protection Products LLC and Johns Hopkins University filed patent infringement lawsuits against Sunrise Farms and several other sprout growers in various U.S. District Courts.
- The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the cases for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
- The defendants filed a joint motion for summary judgment, arguing that the patents-in-suit were invalid as anticipated by the prior art.
- Brassica filed a cross-motion for summary judgment that the patents were not invalid.
- The District Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment of invalidity and denied Brassica's cross-motion.
- Brassica, as Plaintiffs-Appellants, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with Sunrise Farms et al. as Defendants-Appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the prior art of growing and consuming certain cruciferous sprouts anticipate, and thereby invalidate, patents claiming a method of preparing a food product from those same sprouts, where the patent's primary distinction is the identification of a previously unknown but inherent beneficial property of the sprouts?
Opinions:
Majority - Prost, Circuit Judge
Yes. A process is not new and is therefore unpatentable if it was already known in the prior art; discovering a new benefit of an old process does not make the process patentable. The patents are invalid because the prior art teaches the exact same method of growing and eating the same sprouts, and the claimed beneficial properties (being 'rich in glucosinolates') are inherent characteristics of those sprouts, not a new invention. The court first determined that while 'rich in glucosinolates' is a claim limitation, it should be given its ordinary comparative meaning, not a specific numerical value from the patent's specification. The court then applied the doctrine of inherent anticipation, reasoning that the prior art, which included cookbooks and guides, taught every step of the claimed method: germinating specific cruciferous seeds, harvesting them before the two-leaf stage, and preparing them as a food product. The high concentration of glucosinolates is an inherent, natural property of these specific sprouts. Citing Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, the court held that just as one cannot patent a known metal alloy by discovering its inherent corrosion resistance, Brassica cannot patent the known process of growing sprouts by discovering their inherent cancer-fighting properties. Brassica did not invent a new sprout or a new growing method; they simply recognized a previously unappreciated, but always present, natural property of an existing food.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle of inherent anticipation in patent law, clarifying that a known product or process cannot be repatented by claiming a newly discovered natural property or benefit. It prevents the patenting of natural phenomena and protects the public domain by ensuring that long-practiced methods remain freely available, even when scientific advancements reveal new understanding about them. The ruling has significant implications for patents related to natural products, foods, and traditional medicines, as it limits the ability to obtain a monopoly based solely on the scientific discovery of a pre-existing, inherent characteristic.
Unlock the full brief for In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation