Biagro Western Sales, Inc. v. Helena Chemical Co.

Good Law
160 F. Supp. 2d 1112·2001 WL 980961·2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21698
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 7, 2001CIV. F. 01-5014 OWW DLBCalifornia10,791 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wanger, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, BIAGRO WESTERN SALES, INC., moves for a preliminary injunction against Defendant, HELENA CHEMICAL COMPANY. Jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C.’ §§ 1331 and 1338. See Doc. 1, ¶ 5. Oral argument was held April 16, 2001.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Visalia, California. See Doc. 1, ¶ 3. Plaintiffs sole business is the manufacture and sale of agricultural fertilizers derived from phosphorous acid. See Alvitre Dec., ¶ 3. On August 31, 1993, Plaintiff entered into an Exclusive License Agreement with The Regents of the University of California (“the Regents”) to utilize technology replacing phosphates with phosphites as a nutrient source for plants. See Alvitre Dec., ¶ 2; Supp. Alvitre Dec., ¶ 2. Plaintiffs license includes the technology described in United States Patent No. 6,113,-666 (“the ’666 Patent”) issued September 6, 2000. See id. The ’666 patent was issued to the Regents as the assignee of the inventor, Carol J. Lovatt. See Miller Dec., ¶ 2. Several of plaintiffs products use the formulation described…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.