govinfo:USCOURTS-idd-4_25-cv-00559-0

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO 
 
 
HARVEST RIGHT, LLC, a Utah limited 
liability company, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
BLUE ALPINE, LLC, an Idaho limited 
liability company, 
 
 Defendant. 
 
 

 
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND 
ORDER 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
Before the Court is Defendant Blue Alpine, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. 18. Plaintiff Harvest Right, 
LLC, opposes the Motion. Dkt. 21. 
Upon review, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS in PART 
and DENIES in PART the Motion.1 
II. BACKGROUND 
 Plaintiff Harvest Right is a Delaware lim ited liability company with its principal 
place of business in Salt Lake City, Utah. 2 Harvest Right claims to have “pioneered the 
 
1 The Court finds the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented and will decide the Motion on the 
record and without oral argument. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1)(B). 
2 In its Complaint (Dkt. 1), Harvest Right listed itself as a Utah limited liability company in the case caption. 
In its Amended Complaint (Dkt. 7), that changed to a Delaware limited liability company. Then, in its 
opposition brief to the present motion (Dkt. 21), Harvest Right reverted to Utah. Although not overly 
relevant to today’s decision, the Court expects this to be ironed out in the future. 

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2 
development and commercialization of the first affordable, at-home freeze dryers, creating 
an entirely new category of ho me appliance.” Dkt. 7, at 4. Harvest Right developed 
specialized processes and software to free ze-dry a wide array of materials, including 
difficult-to-process materials with high sugar content. Harvest Right created proprietary 
technology such as “specific heating and vacu um cycles,” which are utilized in features 
available on its freeze dryers, such as a “Candy Mode” feature. 
On March 11, 2025, Harvest Right was is sued Patent No. 12, 245,609 (the “’609 
Patent”) and Patent No. 12,245,610, (the “’610 Patent”) both entitled “Freeze Dryers and 
Drying Processes for Ma terials With Low Water Content. ” Dkt. 7, at 2. The Patents 
describe improvements “to the ability and ease of use for processing candy in freeze drying 
machines that were not available prior to th e patented inventions,” among other features. 
Id. at 5. 
 Blue Alpine is an Idaho limited liability company with a principal place of business 
in Saint Anthony, Idaho. Blue Alpine also makes and sells freeze dryers that compete with 
Harvest Right. Harvest Right argues Blue Al pine’s Medium and Large Freeze Dryers 
(model numbers BA40MFD and BA70LFD) infringe on Harvest Right’s patents. 
On September 30, 2025, Harvest Right filed a Complaint (Dkt. 1) and on November 
11, 2025, Harvest Right filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt. 7. Generally speaking, Harvest 
Right alleges Blue Alpine advertised and promoted the “infringing candy-specific 
functionality to unfairly compet e with Harvest Right” and wrot e “specific instructions in 
its user manuals on how to practice the patented methods” including the “patented candy-
specific functionality.” Dkt. 7, at 5–6. Harvest Right argues Blue Alpine published at least 

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3 
one YouTube video on how to use candy fe atures on the infringing machines. Harvest 
Right further asserts Blue Alpine’s manuals instruct users on how to use the infringing 
candy function. On September 30, 2025, Harv est Right sent a letter to Blue Alpine 
informing Blue Alpine of its infringement on the patents. Harvest Ri ght also enclosed a 
copy of its original Complaint—which was filed on that same day—in the letter. 
On January 16, 2026, Blue Alpine file d a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion arguing Harvest 
Right’s claims of pre-suit infringement, as well as willful infringement, should be 
dismissed for failing to meet the pleading standards of Twombly and Iqbal. Dkt. 18-1, at 2. 
Blue Alpine also argues the Amended Complaint states Blue Alpine became aware of the 
Patents on September 30, 2025 —the same day the original Complaint was filed—and 
asserts this is insufficient to qualify as pre-suit knowledge of the Patents. Dkt. 18-1, at 4. 
Furthermore, Blue Alpine contends the Amended Complaint “does not claim copying, bad 
faith, or concealment” and, therefore, the “willfulness claims are conclusory and should be 
dismissed.” Dkt. 18-1, at 6. Fi nally, Blue Alpine does not di spute that post-suit theories 
can proceed; and only addressing pre-suit indirect in fringement and willfulness in its 
Motion. Dkt. 23, at 5. 
III. LEGAL STANDARD 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) pe rmits a court to dismiss a claim if the 
plaintiff has “fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” “A Rule 12(b)(6) 
dismissal may be based on either a ‘lack of a cognizable legal theory’ or ‘the absence of 
sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.’” Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare 
Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation modified). 

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain “a short and 
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” in order to “give 
the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” See 
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007). “Thi s is not an onerous burden.” 
Johnson, 534 F.3d at 1121. 
A complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations,” but it must set forth “more 
than labels and conclusions, and a fo rmulaic recitation of the elements.” Twombly, 550 
U.S. at 555. The complaint must also contain sufficient factual matter to “state a claim to 
relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 
In deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true all 
well-pleaded factual allegations made in the pleading under attack. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 
U.S. 662, 663 (2009). However, a court is not “re quired to accept as tr ue allegations that 
are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” 
Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). 
In cases decided after Iqbal and Twombly, the Ninth Circuit has continually adhered 
to the rule that a dismissal of a complaint without leave to amend is inappropriate unless it 
is beyond doubt that th e complaint could not be saved by an amendment. See Harris v. 
Amgen, Inc., 573 F.3d 728, 737 (9th Cir. 2009). 
IV. DISCUSSION 
Harvest Right’s claim arises from Blue Al pine’s “manufacturi ng, using, selling, 
offering for sale, and/or importing the Accused products directly, jointly, indirectly, and/or 
willfully infringing one or more claims in Ha rvest Right’s” patents. Dkt. 7, at 2. Blue 

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5 
Alpine argues Harvest Right’s Amended Complaint “does not plead non-conclusory facts 
showing that Blue Alpine had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents, nor facts showing 
pre-suit specific intent to indu ce infringement.” Dkt. 23, at 2. Blue Alpine further asserts 
Harvest Right relies on speculation that Blue Alpine plausibly could have been aware of 
the Patents before the suit beca use of the candy feature and its similarity to the patented 
design. As previously stated, Blue Alpine does not dispute that post-suit theories can 
proceed and instead only addresses pre-suit indirect infringement and pre-suit willfulness 
in its Motion. 
A. Pre-suit Theories: Knowledge and Intent 
Blue Alpine asserts Harvest Right has fa iled to show any pre-suit knowledge and 
intent. In response, Harvest Right argues Blue Alpine “intentionally targeted the patented 
‘candy mode’ functionality.” Dkt. 21, at 2. Harvest Right further alleges the difference 
between the patented functionality and how freeze dryers normally operate supports an 
inference Blue Alpine copied Harvest Right’s Patents. Harvest Right repeatedly states it is 
“plausible” Blue Alpine “had knowledge of the patents and its infringement while 
developing, marketing, and selling the infringing devices.” Id. at 2, 6. See also Id. at 3, 4, 
5 (stating other allegations are “plausible”). Harvest Right believes discovery would likely 
show Blue Alpine had knowledge of the Patents and its infringement before the original 
Complaint was filed. Dkt. 21, at 2–3. 
 In contrast, Blue Alpine asserts the Amended Complaint do es not contain any 
“allegations of pre-suit communications, pate nt marking compliance, pre-suit cease-and-
desist letters or notice, claims Blue Alpine reviewed the ‘609 Pate nt and/or ‘610 Patent, 

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6 
nor copying of the patent (as opposed to copy ing Plaintiff’s product, which is different).” 
Dkt. 23, at 3. Blue Alpine further argues th e Amended Complaint fails to show how Blue 
Alpine’s published manuals a nd YouTube videos explaining how to use its products 
amount to the inducement of infringement. Id. at 3. According to Blue Alpine, the 
Amended Complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patents or that the 
instructions were infringing. Id. 
 The Court agrees. Harvest Right’s Amende d Complaint does not provide clear facts 
that support Blue Alpine had knowledge of the ‘609 and ‘610 Patents prior to September 
30, 2025. The Amended Complaint alleges Blue Alpine had knowledge of the Patents no 
later than September 30, which was when Harvest Right sent Blue Alpine a letter informing 
it of the infringement. Dkt. 7, at 7. “Inducement requires a showing that the alleged inducer 
knew of the patent, knowingly induced the infringing acts, and possessed a specific intent 
to encourage another’s infringement of the patent.” Rearden LLC v. Walt Disney Company 
293 F. Supp. 3d. 963, 972 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (quoting Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc., 
581 F.3d 1317, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). 
For an “allegation of indu ced infringement to surviv e a motion to dismiss, a 
complaint must plead facts plausibly showi ng that the accused infringer specifically 
intended another party to infringe the patent and knew that the other party’s acts constituted 
infringement.” Lifetime Indus., Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc ., 869 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017) 
(citation modified). 
While it is certainly plausible Blue Alpi ne had knowledge of the ‘609 and ‘610 
Patents pre-suit, Harvest Right has not persuasively shown how or why it is plausible. For 

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 7 
example, Harvest Right has not provided any documents to support its allegation that Blue 
Alpine knew of the Patents prior to September 30, 2025. Harvest Right’s Complaint merely 
makes the conclusory statement it is plausible Blue Alpine knew of the Patents because of 
the functional similarities between Harvest Ri ght’s patented design s and Blue Alpine’s 
products. This is not enough for the Court to draw a reasonable inference that Blue Alpine 
knew of the Patents. 
Furthermore, Harvest Right’s suggestion that the Court allow discovery because 
discovery will “reveal” Blue Alpines infringement is misplaced. Dkt. 21, at 3. As the Court 
has explained before, this approach—allowing discovery to clear up the confusion in a 
complaint—is “incorrect and puts the di scovery cart before the pleading horse.” Dana v. 
Tewalt, 2022 WL 3598311, at *6 n.9 (D. Idaho Aug. 23, 2022), aff’d in part, rev’d in part 
and remanded sub nom. Dana v. Idaho Dep’t of Corr., 2024 WL 2862581 (9th Cir. June 6, 
2024). Harvest Right must plead sufficient allega tions to warrant discovery, not plead in 
the dark and hope discovery confirms its suspicions. 
For these reasons, Blue Alpine’s motion to Dismiss Harvest Right’s pre-suit 
knowledge and intent theory is GRANTED. 
B. Post-suit Theories 
Harvest Right argues the Amended Complain t plausibly alleges Blue Alpine had 
actual knowledge of the patent s no later than September 30, 2025, via the letter with the 
enclosed Complaint and exhibits . Dkt. 21, at 2. Harvest Righ t further argues that despite 
receiving this notice, Blue Alpine has “ continued to sell, promote, and instruct customers 
to use the infringing ‘Candy Mode’. . .” Dkt. 21, at 2. 

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 8 
Blue Alpine concedes Harvest Right ade quately pled its post-suit theories and 
acknowledges that the post-suit theories may proceed. Dkt. 23, at 5. 
The parties evidently agree on this front, and the Court joins them. Harvest Right’s 
Complaint contains sufficient factual allegations to state a claim that is plausible on its face 
for post-suit infringement. The Complaint states Harvest Right sent the letter to Blue 
Alpine informing it of the alleged patent in fringement, and Blue Alpine does not dispute 
that it received Harvest Right’s letter. 
In short, the Court will GR ANT Blue Alpine’s Motion to Dismiss on pre-suit 
knowledge and intent and DENY Blue Alpine’s Motion to Dismiss on post-suit theories. 
As noted, if amending a complaint could remedy its deficiencies, courts should 
provide plaintiffs with an opportunity to do so. See Jackson v. Carey , 353 F.3d 750, 758 
(9th Cir. 2003). Because Harvest Right may be able to remedy the deficiencies of the pre-
suit infringement claims, the Court will allow an opportunity to ame nd. Thus, the Court 
grants Harvest Right leave to amend to provide facts suggesting a reasonable inference of 
Blue Alpine’s pre-suit knowledge and intent. Alternatively, Harvest Right can proceed to 
discovery on its post-suit theories and, should evidence arise suggesting pre-suit 
knowledge and intent, move to amend at that time. 
V. ORDER 
Now, therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 
1. Blue Alpine’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 18) is GRANTED as it pertains to pre-
suit knowledge and intent. The Motion is DENIED as it pertains to post-suit 
theories. 

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 9 
 
 
2. If Harvest Right chooses to amend its Amended Complaint, it must do so 
within 30 days of the date of this order. 
DATED: June 18, 2026 
 
 
 _________________________ 
 David C. Nye 
 U.S. District Court Judge 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight