This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Patent Infringement
Irrigation Water System Technology

CH2O Inc. v. Meras Engineering Inc., Houweling's Nurseries Oxnard Inc., HNL Holdings Ltd., Houweling Utah Operations Inc., Houweling's Nurseries Ltd.

Published: Oct. 8, 2016 | Result Date: Sep. 6, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:13-cv-08418-JAK-GJS Verdict –  $12,500,000

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Chris Marchese
(Fish & Richardson PC)

Joanna M. Fuller
(Fish & Richardson PC)

Andrew R. Kopsidas
(Fish & Richardson PC)

Michael M. Rosen

Kevin E. Kantharia


Defendant

Robert B. Golden

Jaye G Heybl
(Koppel Patrick Heybl & Philpott)

Craig M Stainbrook
(Stainbrook & Stainbrook LLP)


Facts

Plaintiff CH2O Inc. was a company that provided treatment products for water storage and delivery. It sued defendants for patent infringement relating to its patent entitled "Method for Cleaning and Maintaining Water Delivery Systems." Houweling's Nurseries Oxnard Inc., a tomato grower, was a client of plaintiff's and Meras Engineering Inc., a provider of water treatment solutions, provided technical support and products to Houweling's.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that Meras hired away several of plaintiff's employees to expand its business. It argued that the technical support and products Meras provided to Houweling's and Houweling's practice of that method constituted infringement of plaintiff's patent.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Houweling denied it infringed the patent, that it uses a water disinfection technology that predates the patent in issue by decades, and uses it in irrigation water having a chemistry that also predates the patent in issue by decades. Defendants collectively claimed the patent to be invalid.

Result

The jury found defendants willfully infringed plaintiff's patent and awarded it $12.5 million in damages.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Nov. 14, 2013.


#125018

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390