ADM Edible Bean Specialties, Inc. v. American Bean LLC

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota September 20, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


ADM Edible Bean Specialties, Inc.,      Case No. 23-CV-1096 (JMB/LIB)     

          Plaintiff,                                                 

    v.                                                                         ORDER 

American Bean LLC,                                                        

          Defendant.                                                 


Andrea  Savageau,  Elizabeth  Joan  Slama  Johnson,  Lauren  J.F.  Barta,  Mark  Joseph 
Winebrenner, Shane A. Anderson, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Minneapolis, MN, 
for Plaintiff ADM Edible Bean Specialties, Inc.                           
Gary R. Leistico, Jayne Esch, Leistico & Esch PLLC, Clear Lake, MN, for Defendant 
American Bean LLC.                                                        


This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff ADM Edible Bean Specialties, Inc.’s 
(ADM) and Defendant American Bean LLC’s (American Bean) request for construction 
of disputed claim terms pursuant to Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,

517 U.S. 370

(1996). (Doc. No. 47.) In this action, ADM alleges that American Bean infringed certain
patents protecting its invention of specific edible bean seed varieties. The parties dispute
the meaning of “plurality” and the meaning of the respective names for the bean seed
varieties in question. As discussed below, the Court adopts ADM’s proposed construction
of the term “plurality” and declines to construe the name terms.
BACKGROUND
ADM produces and sells patented edible bean seeds, including several varieties of

pinto beans. American Bean sells dry edible bean seeds to growers, who harvest and sell
the harvested beans back to American Bean, which then resells the beans for consumption.
American Bean sources at least some of its dry edible pinto bean seeds from ADM, which
has patents that cover each of the specific lines of pinto beans at issue here. (See, e.g., Doc.
No. 44 ¶¶ 10, 13, 16, 19, 22; Doc. Nos. 44-1–44-5.)
In April 2023, ADM filed suit against American Bean, asserting numerous claims,

including for patent infringement. (Doc. No. 1.) ADM alleges that, beginning in 2019 and
continuing through today, American Bean has been propagating, stocking, selling, saving,
supplying, shipping, dispensing, conditioning, and delivering ADM’s patented pinto bean
seed varieties without authority to do so. (Doc. No. 44 ¶ 51.) ADM also alleges that
American Bean used its facilities and created new facilities to treat ADM beans and to

resell them to growers for replanting. (Id. ¶¶ 52–64.)
ADM asserts five patents relating to edible pinto bean varieties:

U.S. Patent No. 9,775,312

 covering its “Radiant” pinto bean variety;

U.S. Patent No. 9,532,523

 covering 
its “Vibrant” pinto bean variety;

U.S. Patent No. 11,000,005

 covering its “Cowboy” pinto 
bean variety;

U.S. Patent No. 11,771,047

 covering its “Gleam” pinto bean variety; and

U.S. Patent No. 11,778,975

covering its “Lumen” pinto bean variety. (Doc. No. 44 ¶¶ 10, 13,
16, 19, 22; see also Doc. No. 44-1; Doc. No. 44-2; Doc. No. 44-3; Doc. No. 44-4; Doc.
No. 44-5.) ADM alleges that American Bean infringes claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 12 of its
five pinto bean variety patents. (Doc. No. 44 ¶¶ 66, 73, 83, 90, 100, 107, 117, 124, 134,
141.) Those claims are functionally identical in each patent,1 and appear as follows:

Claim 1: An edible bean seed designated as [Name], a sample of
the edible bean seed deposited under accession no. PI
[Number].

Claim 2: A plant produced by growing the edible bean seed of
claim 1.

Claim 4: An edible bean plant having all of the physiological and
morphological characteristics of the edible bean plant of
claim 2.

Claim 10: A plurality of the edible bean seeds of claim 1.
Claim 11: A method of planting a field, comprising planting the
plurality of the edible bean seeds of claim 10 in the field.

Claim 12: A process for producing edible beans for consumption,
comprising processing the plurality of the edible bean
seeds of claim 10 such that the plurality of the edible
bean seeds are suitable for consumption.

(See Doc. No. 44 ¶¶ 73–80; see also Doc. No. 44-1 at 6; Doc. No. 44-2 at 6; Doc. No. 44-
3 at 6; Doc. No. 44-4 at 6; Doc. No. 44-5 at 6.)
In January 2024, the parties filed a joint claim construction statement, in which they
noted a disagreement on the construction of the term “plurality.” (Doc. No. 42.) ADM
argues that the word “plurality” is defined as “two or more.” (Doc. No. 42-1 at A-1.) For
its part, American Bean proposed that “plurality” means “an essentially homogenous

1 The parties agree that claims of the patents are essentially the same for purposes of the
Court’s claim construction analysis. (See Doc. No. 51 at 16; Doc. No. 63 at 32.)
population of the edible pinto bean seed that is essentially free from other seed and
comprises at least 95% or more of the bean seed.” (Id.)

In addition, the parties disputed the construction of the names for each pinto bean
line (i.e., the terms “Cowboy,” “Vibrant,” “Radiant,” “Lumen,” and “Gleam”). (Id. at A‑3–
A‑12.) ADM believes that each name term is sufficiently defined by the patents and that,
therefore, no construction is necessary. (See id.) American Bean initially proposed the
following constructions for each of the name terms:

Cowboy: A hybrid edible pinto bean seed resulting from a cross
between pinto variety ‘La Paz’ as the male parent and
the pinto variety ‘Sinaloa’ as the female parent. Cowboy
includes asexually produced progeny, by means of
grafting, budding or other similar processes that
produces an offspring with an identical genetic
combination to the single parent plant (i.e., a clone).
Cowboy does not mean pinto beans sexually produced
by Cowboy plants (i.e., the crop or progeny of the plant
by means of natural, sexual reproduction).
Vibrant: A hybrid edible pinto bean seed resulting from a cross
between Pro Vita’s slow darkening pinto breeding line
‘SDP 1533’ as the female parent and the Ameriseed
variety ‘Sinaloa’ as the male parent. Vibrant includes
asexually produced progeny, by means of grafting,
budding or other similar processes that produces an
offspring with an identical genetic combination to the
single parent plant (i.e., a clone). Vibrant does not mean
pinto beans sexually produced by Vibrant plants (i.e., the
crop or progeny of the plant by means of natural, sexual
reproduction).
Sinaloa: A hybrid edible pinto bean seed resulting from a cross
between slow darkening pinto breeding line ‘SDP 1533’
as the female parent and the variety ‘Sinaloa’ as the male
parent. Radiant includes asexually produced progeny,
by means of grafting, budding or other similar processes
that produces an offspring with an identical genetic
combination to the single parent plant (i.e., a clone).
Radiant does not mean pinto beans sexually produced by
Radiant plants (i.e., the crop or progeny of the plant by
means of natural, sexual reproduction).
Lumen: A hybrid edible pinto bean seed resulting from a cross
between pinto variety ‘Sinaloa’ as the male parent and
the ProVita pinto variety ‘07-5213’ as the female parent.
Lumen includes asexually produced progeny, by means
of grafting, budding or other similar processes that
produces an offspring with an identical genetic
combination to the single parent plant (i.e., a clone).
Lumen does not mean pinto beans sexually produced by
Lumen plants (i.e., the crop or progeny of the plant by
means of natural, sexual reproduction).
Gleam: A hybrid edible pinto bean seed resulting from a cross
between pinto variety ‘Sinaloa’ as the male parent and
the ProVita pinto variety ‘07-5213’ as the female parent.
Gleam includes asexually produced progeny, by means
of grafting, budding or other similar processes that
produces an offspring with an identical genetic
combination to the single parent plant (i.e., a clone).
Gleam does not mean pinto beans sexually produced by
Gleam plants (i.e., the crop or progeny of the plant by
means of natural, sexual reproduction).

(Id.)

Then, after receiving ADM’s claim construction brief, American Bean conceded
that its proposed constructions for the name terms were “incorrect”; it then proposed the
following new, single construction:
The designated name and number of each patented pinto bean
seed—[Radiant, Vibrant, Cowboy, Gleam] or [Lumen]—
means an inbred edible pinto bean seed resulting from an initial
cross between one pinto variety as the male parent and another
pinto variety as the female parent and multiple generational
selections described in the Origin and Breeding History of each
patent to ultimately produce a uniform, stable variety
substantially free of any variants. A sample of said bean seed
is deposited with the National Center for Genetic Resources
Preservation under an accession number listed on each patent.
Said patented edible pinto bean includes seeds and plants that
are phenotypically, morphologically, and genetically the same
as the sample deposited under said accession number.

(Doc. No. 56 at 3–5.)
DISCUSSION
The parties now ask the Court to construe the terms “plurality” and the name terms
of each of the pinto bean lines. The Court first construes the term “plurality” to mean “two
or more.” The Court also concludes that the names of the bean varieties at issue do not
require construction.
“[T]he interpretation and construction of patent claims, which define the scope of
the patentee’s rights under the patent, is a matter of law exclusively for the court.”
Markman, 52 F.3d at 970–71. “[T]he trial court must determine the meaning of any
disputed words from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time
of filing.” Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Lear Corp.,

516 F.3d 1331, 1335

 (Fed. Cir. 2008).  
Courts “presume, unless otherwise compelled, that the same claim term in the same patent 
or related patents carries the same construed meaning.”  Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek 
Corp.,

334 F.3d 1314

, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003.)  Further, “the words of a claim are generally 
given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which “is the meaning that the term would 

have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as 
of the effective filing date of the patent application.”  Phillips v. AWH Corp.,

415 F.3d 1303

, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted).2                      

The analysis of any disputed claim term begins with the intrinsic evidence, which 
includes “the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the 
prosecution history.”  Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,

90 F.3d 1576, 1582

 (Fed. Cir. 
1996).  The claims “are part of a fully integrated written instrument, consisting principally 
of a specification that concludes with the claims.”  Phillips,

415 F.3d at 1315

 (quotation 
and internal citation omitted).  The claims are therefore “read in view of the specification.”  

Markman, 52 F.3d at 979.                                                  
Although the Court may, in its discretion, consider extrinsic evidence as an aid to 
determine proper claim construction, it is improper to do so if intrinsic evidence alone 
resolves any ambiguity in the disputed term.  See Vitronics,

90 F.3d at 1583

.  Courts may, 
however, use a dictionary or technical treatise to “assist in understanding the commonly 

understood meaning” of a term, so long as these sources do not contradict the definition 
that is found in the relevant patent documents.  Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1322–23.  Finally, 
courts are not obligated to construe every disputed term.  See O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond 
Innovation Tech. Co.,

521 F.3d 1351, 1362

 (Fed. Cir. 2008).               
I.   “PLURALITY”                                                          

The parties dispute the meaning of the term “plurality” as it is used in Claim 10, 
which claims “[a] plurality of the edible bean seeds of claim 1.”  (See Doc. No. 44-1 at 6.)  

2 Although there are exceptions to this general rule, Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. 
LLC,

669 F.3d 1362, 1365

 (Fed. Cir. 2012), neither party argues that any exception applies. 
American Bean asserts that “plurality” means “an essentially homogenous population of 
the edible pinto bean seed that is essentially free from other seed and comprises at least 

95% or more of the bean seed.”  (Doc. No. 49 at 4.)  ADM disagrees and asserts that 
“plurality” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning of “two or more.”  (Doc. No. 51 
at 34.)  For the following four reasons, the Court agrees with ADM: “[a] plurality of the 
edible bean seeds of claim 1” means “two or more edible bean seeds of claim 1.” 
First, courts in the Federal Circuit have consistently concluded, as has ADM, that 
the plain and ordinary meaning of “plurality” in a patent is “two or more.”  See, e.g.,  SIMO 

Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Tech. Ltd.,

983 F.3d 1367, 1377

 (Fed. 
Cir. 2021) (“‘[A] plurality of’ requires two or more.”); Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak 
Cheese & Powder Sys., Inc.,

725 F.3d 1341, 1348

 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The district court 
correctly assessed that a plurality simply means two or more.”); August Tech. Corp. v. 
Camtek, Ltd.,

655 F.3d 1278, 1286

 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“A plurality of wafers means more 

than one physically distinct wafer.”); ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,

346 F.3d 1374, 1382

 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (concluding that “each of a plurality of fields” means “each of at 
least two fields”); Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc.,

258 F.3d 1317, 1328

 (Fed. 
Cir. 2001) (“[P]lurality, when used in a claim, refers to two or more items, absent some 
indication to the contrary.”); York Prods., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm & Family Ctr.,

99 F.3d 1568, 1575

 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (concluding that plurality means “at least two”); Wanker 
v. United States,

152 Fed. Cl. 219

, 251 (2021) (“[T]he Court construes ‘plurality’ to have
its plain and ordinary meaning of ‘two or more.’”). American Bean does not provide the
Court with any caselaw that would require a different result here.
Second, dictionary definitions of “plurality” (except for definitions related to the
term’s use in the context of voting), as provided to the Court by ADM, also indicate that

the term refers to more than one, or the state of being plural. (See Doc. No. 53-10
(excerpted pages from a dictionary defining “plurality” as “the state or fact of being plural,”
and defining “plural” as “numbering more than one”); Doc. No. 53-11 (excerpted pages
from a dictionary defining “plurality” as “the state or fact of being plural” and defining
“plural” as “relating to or composed of more than one member, set, or kind”); Doc. No.
53‑12 (excerpted pages from a dictionary defining “plurality” as “the state of being plural

or numerous” and defining “plural” as “containing, involving, or composed of more than
one person, thing, item, etc.”); Doc. No. 53-13 (excerpted pages from a dictionary defining
“plurality” as “the state of being plural” and defining “plural” as “of, relating to, or
constituting a word form used to denote more than one”).) American Bean does not dispute
these definitions or “provide an alternative dictionary definition that supports its proposed

construction. (See Doc. No. 56.)
Third, the following patent language on which American Bean relies to support its
proposed construction is unavailing:
In another embodiment, seed of the edible bean line designated
as [name] is disclosed. Such seed may be an essentially
homogeneous population of the edible bean line designated as
[name], wherein such seed of the edible bean line designated
as [name] is essentially free of other seed. Accordingly, the
seed of the present invention comprises at least 95% or more
of the seed of the edible bean line designated as [name.]

(Doc. No. 49 at 5; see also Doc. No. 44-1 at 4; Doc. No. 44-2 at 4; Doc. No. 44-3 at 4; Doc.
No. 44-4 at 4; Doc. No. 44-5 at 4.) This language does not use the term “plurality” or
otherwise purport to define that term. Instead, it comes from a particular embodiment
envisioning a “population of the edible bean line.” The reference to “95% or more”

describes the degree of the population’s homogeneity, and, contrary to American Bean’s
characterization, there is no indication that “95% or more” relates to the term “plurality”
or even that it relates to claim 10. Moreover, American Bean’s urged language also
includes the permissive “may,” which precludes the Court from construing this language
as American Bean suggests. Cf. X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,

757 F.3d 1358, 1362

 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (concluding permissive language “may” is not mandatory 

unless other language makes it “clear[ly] and unmistakabl[y]” so).        
Fourth  and  finally,  American  Bean’s  proposed  construction  would  improperly 
import one limitation from an embodiment into claim 10.  See JVW Enters., Inc. v. Interact 
Accessories, Inc.,

424 F.3d 1324, 1335

(Fed. Cir. 2005) (concluding that limitations from
one embodiment cannot limit patent claims absent express intent “for the claims and the

embodiments in the specification to be strictly coextensive” (quotation omitted)). The
patents each expressly state that the embodiments are not coextensive with the claims but
instead provide that “the invention is not limited by the description of the exemplary
embodiment, but rather by the appended claims as originally filed.” (Doc. Nos. 44-1 at 6;
Doc. No. 44-2 at 6; Doc. No. 44-3 at 6; Doc. No. 44-4 at 6; Doc. No. 44-5 at 6.)

Therefore, the Court declines American Bean’s proposed construction of “plurality”
and instead gives it its plain and ordinary meaning of “two or more.”
II. NAMES OF THE PINTO BEAN VARIETIES
American Bean argues that the name terms “Cowboy,” “Vibrant,” “Radiant,”

“Lumen,” and “Gleam” require construction. (Doc. No. 49 at 9.) ADM asserts that these
terms need no construction “because their plain and ordinary meanings are sufficiently
clear in the context of the Asserted Claims.” (Doc. No. 51 at 22.) The Court again agrees
with ADM.
A. Timeliness of American Bean’s Second Proposed Construction
As an initial matter, the Court determines that because American Bean has not

shown good cause, American Bean’s initial construction is before the Court, not the second
proposed construction.
An August 2023 pretrial scheduling order made clear that the parties’ proposed
constructions were due on November 30, 2023, and that, after that time, the parties could
amend their proposed constructions “only by leave of Court for good cause shown.” (Doc.

No. 32 at 6.) In keeping with that deadline, American Bean proposed its initial construction
of the name terms in its affirmative claim construction brief and in the parties’ joint claim
construction statement. (Doc. No. 49; see also Doc. No. 42-1.) However, in April 2024,
in its response to ADM’s claim construction brief, American Bean stated that it “now
understands its initial proposed construction of the terms ‘Cowboy,’ ‘Vibrant,’ ‘Radiant,’

‘Lumen,’ and ‘Gleam’ to be incorrect” and proposed a new construction of those terms.
(Doc. No. 56 at 2–3.) Before seeking to change its proposed construction, American Bean
did not explicitly request leave of Court. Nevertheless, the Court construes American
Bean’s newly asserted construction in its responsive claim construction Brief as a request
for leave to amend its initial claim construction of the name terms.

“The primary measure of good cause is the movant’s diligence in attempting to meet
the order’s requirements.” Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc.,

532 F.3d 709, 716

 (8th Cir. 
2008) (declining to consider a new construction because a diligent party “would have 
performed this research at the outset of the litigation, and at least prior to the scheduled 
deadline”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Dr. Reddy’s Lab, 
No. CV1918686MASTJB,

2021 WL 1820486

(D.N.J. May 6, 2021) (“To allow a new

claim construction presented for the first time in a responsive brief without a demonstration
of good cause would violate both the letter and the spirit of the Local Patent Rules.”).
Here, American Bean asserts that it did not realize that the patents applied to sexual
reproductions of the patented varieties until after reviewing a declaration filed in support
of ADM’s affirmative claim construction brief. This explanation, however, does not

establish good cause because the language of the patents and the PVPA certificates attached
to the initial complaint contemplate sexual reproduction of the patented pinto bean varieties
at issue. (See Doc. Nos. 1-7–1-9, 44-1–44-5.) Had American Bean acted diligently, it
would have known that the language of the patents at issue contemplated sexual
reproduction prior to reviewing the declaration. Thus, the Court concludes that American

Bean has not demonstrated good cause to amend its proposed construction of the name
terms, and therefore it will not consider the second proposed construction.
B. Consideration of American Bean’s Initial Proposed Construction
American Bean asserts that the name terms are not sufficiently clear and require

construction. The Court disagrees.
Claim construction is “a matter of resolution of disputed meanings and technical
scope, to clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee covered by the claims,
for use in the determination of infringement,” and “not an obligatory exercise in
redundancy.” U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,

103 F.3d 1544, 1568

 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  
A term that is clear and readily comprehensible in its original form may need no further 

elucidation.  See Ecolab USA Inc. v. Diversey, Inc., No. 12-CV-1984 (SRN/JJG),

2014 WL 258570

, at *14 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2014) (declining to construe term that was “already 
understandable”); see also Brown v. 3M,

265 F.3d 1349, 1352

(Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding
that claims at issue did “not require elaborate interpretation”).
The Court first declines to adopt a construction that the proponent has conceded is

“incorrect.” (See Doc. No. 56 at 2.) In addition, and more substantively, the Court declines
to construe terms that do not relate to any technical claim language essential to assist a trier
of fact in understanding the scope of the claims. Instead, both parties acknowledge that
the terms “Cowboy,” “Radiant,” “Vibrant,” “Lumen,” and “Gleam” are merely
nomenclature; they are designations or labels that “will be used to refer” to the particular

patented edible bean variety. (Doc. Nos. 44-1 at 4; Doc. No. 44-2 at 4; Doc. No. 44-3 at
4; Doc. No. 44-4 at 4; Doc. No. 44-5 at 4.) In fact, American Bean concedes that it “does
not dispute that these name terms are simply the variety names for the patented edible bean
lines as ADM points out in its [affirmative claim construction] brief.” (Doc. No. 56 at 3
(quotation omitted).) As such, American Bean does not explain how the unique labels,
which are used only to refer to particular patented pinto bean lines and distinguish one

patented line from another, could ever require construction. The language of the patents
makes clear, even to a lay person, that the terms “Cowboy,” “Radiant,” “Vibrant,”
“Lumen,” and “Gleam” are merely the names of the patented pinto bean varieties.3 Thus,
the Court need not construe the name terms “Cowboy,” “Radiant,” “Vibrant,” “Lumen,”
and “Gleam.”

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT ADM’s request for claim construction (Doc. No. 47) 
is GRANTED as follows:                                                    
1.   The term “[a] plurality of the edible bean seeds of claim 1” in claim 10 means 
     “two or more edible bean seeds of claim 1;” and                 

2.   The name terms “Cowboy,” “Radiant,” “Vibrant,” “Lumen,” and “Gleam” 
     require no construction.                                        

Dated:  September 20, 2024              /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan              
                                   Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan            
                                   United States District Court      


3 Furthermore, American Bean’s proposed construction would, in effect, add its preferred 
summary of each invention as the meaning for the respective label, rendering the actual 
patent language—especially the language in Claims 1, 2, and 4—superfluous.  See Exxon 
Chem. Pats., Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp.,

64 F.3d 1553, 1557

 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (observing that 
court “must give meaning to all the words in [the] claims.”).