`
`Case 1:21-cv-00546-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 1
`
`
`HIP, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`HORMEL FOODS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`C.A. No. _________
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR CORRECTION OF
`PATENT INVENTORSHIP AND OWNERSHIP
`
`Plaintiff HIP, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “HIP”) files this Complaint against Defendant Hormel
`
`Foods Corporation (“Defendant” or “Hormel”) for correction of inventorship and ownership of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,980,498 (the “’498 Patent”).
`
`HIP files this Complaint out of an abundance of caution in view of Hormel’s pending
`
`challenge to HIP’s standing in the related lawsuit, C.A. No. 18-802 (CFC) (the “18-802 Case”).
`
`HIP believes it has standing in the 18-802 Case, but in an effort to moot Hormel’s challenge,
`
`reduce the burden of jurisdictional disagreements on the Court and the parties, and to allow the
`
`parties to focus on the merits of the dispute, which are now reflected in a Joint Pretrial Order and
`
`accompanying materials filed in the 18-802 Case, HIP files the instant lawsuit to obviate any issue
`
`as to standing at the onset of the lawsuit. HIP intends to move to consolidate this case with the 18-
`
`802 Case, allowing the consolidated case to move forward on the merits.
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`HIP, Inc., is an Oklahoma corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas,
`
`Texas. HIP, Inc. was formerly known as Unitherm Food Systems, Inc.
`
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Hormel Foods Corporation is a Delaware
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00546-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 2
`
`corporation with its principal place of business in Austin, Minnesota. At present, Hormel Foods
`
`Corporation is erroneously listed as the owner of record of the ’498 Patent by virtue of
`
`assignments received from the currently named “inventors.”
`
`NATURE OF THIS ACTION
`
`3.
`
`This is an action for correction of inventorship and ownership arising under the
`
`patent laws of the United States, section 256 of Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c), and
`
`1400(b) because Defendant resides in this District.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`The true and sole inventor of all of the subject matter claimed in the’498 Patent is
`
`6.
`
`HIP’s president, David Howard. HIP, Inc. has standing to bring this action for correction of
`
`inventorship and ownership by virtue of the May 29, 2018 assignment from David Howard to HIP
`
`(see C.A. No. 18-802, D.I. 5, Exhibit J), attached hereto as Exhibit I, and/or the April 14, 2021
`
`Quitclaim and Assignment from Marlen International, Inc. (“Marlen”) to HIP of all rights that
`
`Unitherm LLC or Marlen may have had in the ’498 Patent, attached hereto as Exhibit H. HIP
`
`reserves the right to bring a further action for correction of inventorship and ownership of any
`
`other related Hormel patent application should such application issue as a patent.
`
`The ’498 Patent
`
`7.
`
`The ’498 Patent, titled “Hybrid Bacon Cooking System,” was issued by the U.S.
`
`Patent and Trademark Office on May 29, 2018. The ’498 Patent issued from U.S. Patent
`
`Application Serial No. 13/207,065, which was filed on August 10, 2011, and claims the benefit of
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00546-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 3
`
`Provisional Patent Application No. 61/372,560, which was filed on August 11, 2010. A copy of
`
`the ’498 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`8.
`
`Through error, the “inventors” currently named in the ’498 Patent are Brian J.
`
`Srsen, Richard M. Herreid, James E. Mino, and Brian E. Hendrickson. At present, Defendant
`
`Hormel Foods Corporation is erroneously listed as the owner of record of the ’498 Patent by
`
`virtue of assignments which Hormel Foods Corporation has received from all of the named
`
`“inventors.”
`
`9.
`
`The true and sole inventor of all the subject matter claimed in the ’498 Patent is
`
`Plaintiff’s president, David Howard. Through error, David Howard was omitted as the sole
`
`inventor of the ’498 Patent. This Complaint therefore seeks a correction of inventorship under 35
`
`U.S.C. §256(b) to name David Howard as the sole inventor of the ’498 Patent. Since David
`
`Howard assigned all of his rights in the ’498 Patent to HIP, this Complaint seeks transfer of
`
`ownership of the ’498 Patent, and all pending foreign patent applications and/or foreign patents in
`
`any way based on U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 13/207,065, Provisional Patent Application
`
`No. 61/372,560 and/or the ’498 Patent to HIP, the equitable title holder.
`
`10. The ’498 Patent has a total of 16 claims. Claim 1 calls for a method of making
`
`precooked bacon pieces using a hybrid cooking system, comprising:
`
`a) preheating bacon pieces with a microwave oven to a temperature of l40°F to
`
`210°F to create preheated bacon pieces, the preheating forming a barrier with
`
`melted fat around the preheated bacon pieces and reducing an amount of
`
`condensation that forms on the preheated bacon pieces when transferred to a
`
`cooking compartment of an oven, the barrier preventing any condensation that
`
`forms from contacting the preheated bacon pieces under the melted fat and
`
`diluting flavor in the preheated bacon pieces;
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00546-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 4
`
`b) transferring the preheated bacon pieces to the cooking compartment of the oven,
`
`the cooking compartment heated with steam from an external steam generator,
`
`the external steam generator being external to the cooking compartment, the
`
`steam being injected into the cooking compartment and being approximately
`
`400°F to 1000°F when the steam leaves the external steam generator, the
`
`cooking compartment including internal surfaces, the steam assisting in keeping
`
`the internal surfaces at a temperature below 375°F (i.e., the smoke point of
`
`bacon fat) thereby reducing off flavors during cooking in the cooking
`
`compartment; and
`
`c) cooking the preheated bacon pieces in the cooking compartment to a water
`
`activity level of 0.92 or less to create precooked bacon pieces.
`
`11. The remaining claims 2-16 of the ’498 Patent either repeat certain limitations
`
`called for in claim 1 or variously call for: (i) cooking bacon slices having a thickness of 0.25 inch
`
`(6.35 millimeters) or less; (ii) the steam level in the cooking compartment being greater than 90%;
`
`(iii) the preheater being either a microwave, infrared or hot air oven; or (iv) the cooking
`
`compartment including a heating element to preheat the compartment.
`
`12. The only oven disclosed in the ’498 Patent and used in the patent examples for
`
`cooking the preheated bacon is a Unitherm Mini Spiral Oven.
`
`The Prior Related Patent of David Howard (The “Howard Patent”)
`
`13. On December 6, 2016, HIP’s president, David Howard, was issued U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,510,610 for a “Process for Producing Precooked Bacon Slices” (the “Howard Patent”). The
`
`Howard Patent was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to HIP as the
`
`assignee of the inventor, Mr. Howard. A copy of the Howard Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`B.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00546-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 5
`
`14. The Howard Patent discloses and claims various embodiments of what has been
`
`referred to as the “Unitherm Process” wherein precooked sliced bacon products are prepared by
`
`cooking the bacon in a superheated steam environment in a spiral oven. As expressly called for in
`
`claim 2 of the Howard Patent, the Unitherm Process can also optionally include a preheating step.
`
`15. The process claimed in the ’498 Patent is an embodiment of the Unitherm Process
`
`which includes a preheating step. Specifically, the process claimed in the ’498 Patent is an
`
`embodiment of the Unitherm Process wherein the bacon is preheated in a microwave or other
`
`oven prior to cooking the bacon in a superheated steam environment in a spiral oven.
`
`Prior Related Proceedings Between the Parties
`
`16. On September 29, 2014, more than two years and two months prior to the issuance
`
`of the Howard Patent, Plaintiff brought suit against Hormel in the U.S. District Court for the
`
`District of Minnesota (Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corporation and Hormel
`
`Foods Corporate Services, LLC, Case No.: 0:14-CV-04034-JNE/BRK (D. Minn.)) for breach of a
`
`Mutual Confidential Disclosure Agreement (the “MCDA”) and a Joint Development Agreement
`
`(the “JDA”) between the parties. Relevant to the present case, Plaintiff also brought a claim for
`
`declaratory relief under the terms of the JDA naming Plaintiff the owner of the Hormel patent
`
`application for the ’498 Patent.
`
`17. Hormel counterclaimed for (i) breach of the JDA, (ii) a declaration of ownership
`
`under the JDA of Hormel’s own patent application for the ’498 Patent, and (iii) a declaration of
`
`ownership of the Unitherm Process as disclosed in Plaintiff’s then pending application for the
`
`Howard Patent.
`
`18. On September 14, 2016, more than two and one half months prior to the issuance
`
`of the Howard Patent and more than 20 months prior to the issuance of the ’498 Patent, a final
`
`judgment was entered by the Federal District Court in Minnesota in which the court dismissed,
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00546-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 6
`
`with prejudice, Hormel’s declaratory judgment counterclaim for ownership of the Unitherm
`
`Process disclosed in the Howard Patent application but dismissed, without prejudice, Plaintiff’s
`
`and Hormel’s declaratory judgment claims for ownership of the process claimed in the ’498 Patent
`
`and disclosed in the then pending Hormel patent application. All other claims of both parties were
`
`dismissed with prejudice.
`
`19. A copy of a summary judgment Order which led to the final judgment is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit C. Relevant to the present action, in rejecting Hormel’s attempt to obtain
`
`summary judgment on its counterclaim for a declaration that Hormel developed the process
`
`disclosed in the Hormel patent application which became the '498 Patent, the court noted
`
`“Howard’s deposition testimony that during the July 2007 presentation to Hormel, Howard
`
`presented the idea of preheating bacon with a microwave before cooking it in a spiral oven.”
`
`Exhibit C at 10.
`
`20. Also relevant to the present action, the court found in dismissing with prejudice
`
`Hormel’s counterclaim for ownership of the Unitherm Process disclosed in the Howard Patent
`
`Application that (a) “it is undisputed Howard conceived of the Unitherm Process before the JDA’s
`
`effective date” and (b) “Hormel does not point the Court to any specific improvement in the
`
`process that was developed as part of the Project.” Exhibit C at 9-10.
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
`
`on September 19, 2016. Hormel filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal on October 5, 2016.
`
`22.
`
`In a decision issued on April 18, 2018, the 8th Circuit affirmed the judgment of the
`
`District Court regarding all claims and counterclaims on appeal. A copy of the 8th Circuit decision
`
`is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`23. The 8th Circuit decision issued 6 weeks prior to the issuance of the ’498 Patent.
`
`Concerning the parties contractual claims under the JDA for ownership of the process disclosed in
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00546-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 7
`
`the Hormel application for the ’498 Patent, which claims had been dismissed without prejudice by
`
`the District Court, the 8th Circuit noted that these claims had not been dismissed in this manner to
`
`evade the final order doctrine, but rather because the application for the ’498 Patent was still
`
`pending. The 8th Circuit further noted that the parties had assured the court that the contract
`
`claims would not be revived after the appeal. See Exhibit D at 4 n.2.
`
`24. Also relevant to this present action, in affirming the judgment of the District Court
`
`against Hormel’s counterclaim for ownership of the Unitherm Process disclosed in the Howard
`
`Patent, the 8th Circuit held that:
`
`It is undisputed that Unitherm’s Howard brought a developed “Unitherm
`Process” to Hormel when they entered the JDA in September 2007. Some
`months later, Unitherm applied for the Unitherm Process patent. Hormel
`declined invitations to add claims to the application and presented no evidence
`that any improvements in the Process as patented were developed as part of the
`Project.
`
`Exhibit D at 13.
`
`25. The 8th Circuit further affirmed that: “The Unitherm Process, as patented, was
`
`conceived by Unitherm and sufficiently reduced to practice to induce Hormel to enter into the
`
`JDA.” Id. In addition, all of “the information Hormel disclosed to JBT was disclosed in the
`
`Unitherm Process patent application . . .” Id. at 9.
`
`26. On May 29, 2018, HIP filed suit in this Court against Defendant and Hormel Foods
`
`Corporate Services, LLC, Dold Foods, LLC, Osceola Food, LLC, and Rochelle Foods, LLC (HIP,
`
`Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corporation et al., C.A. No. 18-802-CFC-SRF). HIP’s claims in that case,
`
`as here, are for correction of inventorship and ownership of the ’498 Patent. HIP’s contingent
`
`claims for patent infringement were dismissed as premature. HIP reserves the right to bring a
`
`patent infringement action upon the resolution of the instant lawsuit.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00546-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 8
`
`Prior to the Processes Invented by David Howard,
`Precooked Bacon Was Produced in the U.S. in 100% Microwave Oven Systems
`
`27.
`
`Prior to the processes invented by David Howard, substantially all commercial
`
`manufacturers, including Hormel, used continuous 100% microwave oven systems to produce
`
`precooked sliced bacon products for sale in retail and foodservice markets. A continuous
`
`microwave oven system typically consists of a series of four or five microwave oven cabinets
`
`through which the bacon slices are sequentially conveyed such that the first cabinet begins the
`
`heating process and the cooking of the bacon is completed in the final cabinet.
`
`28. The precooked bacon products produced by these microwave oven systems do not
`
`approach the flavor, texture, or appearance of freshly cooked bacon. Further problems associated
`
`with the commercial microwave oven process include: low yields; inconsistent and non-uniform
`
`product characteristics; a high fire risk; and high maintenance and energy costs.
`
`29. The high fire risk in the microwave oven process results not only from electrical
`
`arcing problems which are commonly encountered in industrial microwave ovens, but also from
`
`the amount of flammable bacon fat which is rendered from the product during cooking. In order
`
`for the precooked bacon to qualify as “fully cooked,” at least 60% of the raw weight of the bacon
`
`must typically be rendered from the product.
`
`30.
`
`In addition, because the microwave oven systems rely upon microwave energy for
`
`cooking rather than the creation of a sterilizing high temperature environment in the oven, health
`
`safety risks resulting from pathogen contamination in the oven conveyor belt, and elsewhere in the
`
`oven itself, are also a concern for the microwave oven process.
`
`31.
`
`For example, positive swabs showing pathogen contamination of microwave oven
`
`belts in the precooked bacon section of Hormel’s facility in Rochelle, Illinois necessitated the
`
`replacement of the oven belts in July 2013 and March 2014.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00546-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 9
`
`32. Microwave ovens in the precooked bacon section of the Rochelle, Illinois facility
`
`also tested positive for contamination in January 2013, February 2014, August 2016, and January,
`
`March, and August 2017.
`
`33. The Unitherm Process, performed with or without the optional preheating step,
`
`provides significant improvements in product consistency and yield and produces a precooked
`
`sliced bacon product which is remarkably similar to freshly cooked bacon.
`
`34. The Unitherm Process, performed with or without the optional preheating step, also
`
`prevents contamination and eliminates fire risks within the oven by cooking the bacon in a
`
`sterilizing, superheated steam environment such that an amount of oxygen sufficient for igniting
`
`the highly flammable bacon fat is not present within the spiral oven.
`
`Mr. Howard’s Background and Invention of the Processes
`
`35. HIP’s president, David Howard, began business in the United Kingdom in 1985
`
`and expanded operations to the United States in 1993.
`
`36.
`
`Since 1985, Mr. Howard has invented a number of different cooking and heating
`
`processes, systems, and ovens. Mr. Howard has also obtained eighteen (18) U.S. patents and has
`
`obtained patents in other countries. In addition to U.S. Patent No. 9,510,610 (the “Howard
`
`Patent”), Mr. Howard’s other patents include: U.S. Patent No. 9,504,258 for “Airflow Pattern for
`
`Spiral Ovens”; U.S. Patent No. 9,445,689 for “Transfer Mechanism for a Continuous Heat
`
`Transfer System”; U.S. Patent No. 9,345,252 for “Method, Continuous Apparatus, and Burner for
`
`Producing a Surface-Roasted Product”; U.S. Patent No. 9,220,276 for “Airflow Pattern for Spiral
`
`Ovens”; U.S. Patent No. 9,215,892 for “Pasteurization System for Root Vegetables”; U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,875,621 for “Method, Continuous Apparatus, and Burner for Producing a Surface-Roasted
`
`Product”; U.S. Patent No. 9,107,422 for “Airflow Pattern for Spiral Ovens”; U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,728,555 for “Apparatus and Method for Searing, Branding, and Cooking”; U.S. Patent No.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00546-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: 10
`
`8,646,383 for “Spiral Oven Apparatus and Method of Cooking”; U.S. Patent No. 6,867,392 for
`
`“Infrared Element and Oven”; U.S. Patent No. 6,780,448 for “Pasteurization of Food Products”;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,675,589 for “Freeze-Crusting Process”; and U.S. Patent No. 6,622,513 for
`
`“Freeze-Crusting Process and Apparatus.”
`
`37.
`
`In 1989, after a series of catastrophic fires in various bacon cooking facilities, Mr.
`
`Howard developed a system in the U.K. for cooking bacon slices in a linear convection oven in an
`
`environment which included up to about 50% superheated steam. The linear oven, which was also
`
`developed by Mr. Howard, was known as the Unitherm RapidFlow Oven.
`
`38. Two major producers in the U.K., TMI and Sovereign Foods, adopted the process
`
`and began using multiple RapidFlow Oven lines for manufacturing precooked bacon.
`
`39. Mr. Howard’s RapidFlow Oven Process included the options of (a) cooking the
`
`bacon at a temperature above the smoke point of the bacon fat (i.e., above 375°F) to impart a
`
`roasted flavor to the product or (b) maintaining the temperature in the oven below the smoke point
`
`of the bacon fat to prevent the addition of the roasted flavor.
`
`40. The product produced by the RapidFlow Oven Process was a fully cooked sliced
`
`bacon product which was rendered to less than 40% of its raw weight, had a water activity level of
`
`less than 0.92, and resembled pan-fried bacon.
`
`41. Because of the length of the linear oven that would be required in most U.S.
`
`production lines for producing high volumes of precooked bacon, the RapidFlow Oven system
`
`was not a good fit for the U.S. market. Additionally, although elevated superheated steam levels
`
`were provided in the linear oven process, Mr. Howard desired to develop a continuous process in
`
`which substantially all of the air in the oven was replaced with superheated steam.
`
`42.
`
`In 1994, Mr. Howard conceived the continuous Unitherm Process of cooking sliced
`
`bacon in a superheated steam environment in a spiral oven. Mr. Howard recorded his conception
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00546-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 11 of 27 PageID #: 11
`
`of the Unitherm Process in an invention disclosure form.
`
`43. At that time, however, Plaintiff was awaiting the outcome of patent litigation
`
`between others in the industry which would determine whether Plaintiff would be able to produce
`
`and sell spiral ovens and spiral oven processes.
`
`44.
`
`In 1995, at the request of Armour Swift Eckrich, Mr. Howard performed an in-
`
`depth review of a 100% microwave oven line for cooking bacon at an Armour Swift Eckrich
`
`facility.
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff subsequently entered
`
`into discussions with Ferrite Microwave
`
`Technologies, a manufacturer of industrial microwave ovens, for a possible purchase of Ferrite by
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`46.
`
`In 2004, David Howard conceived the version of the Unitherm Process (i.e., the
`
`Unitherm Process with the use of a microwave oven, or other preheater, prior to the spiral oven)
`
`which is now claimed in the ’498 Patent. Mr. Howard’s invention of the process claimed in the
`
`’498 Patent is shown in a sketch of the process which was contemporaneously drawn by Mr.
`
`Howard in 2004 as follows:
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00546-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 12 of 27 PageID #: 12
`
`47. This sketch shows a processing line which consists of a series of five pieces of
`
`equipment. Notes 1-5, which correspond to and provide additional information regarding the five
`
`pieces of equipment, are provided below the sketch.
`
`48.
`
`Proceeding from left to right, and as explained by the notations in the sketch, the
`
`first piece of equipment shown in Mr. Howard’s sketch is a Unitherm vertical freeze cruster which
`
`had just been patented by Mr. Howard in 2004. The freeze cruster was shown in the sketch as an
`
`alternative to the walk-in type freezers which are commonly used in the art for freezing or par
`
`freezing the incoming bacon bellies to stiffen the bellies for consistent slicing.
`
`49. The second piece of equipment shown in Mr. Howard’s sketch is a Grote slicer for
`
`cutting the bacon bellies into raw bacon slices.
`
`50. The third piece of equipment shown in Mr. Howard’s 2004 sketch is a preheater
`
`which, as described in note 3, can be a radio frequency (RF) heater, a microwave (MW) oven, or a
`
`RapidFlow (RF) linear convection oven. The preheater produces a “phase change” wherein the
`
`preheater can be operated to “thaw” or “heat” the bacon prior to cooking. The sketch also shows
`
`that the preheating cabinet could optionally include both a lower conveyor belt and an upper belt
`
`(i.e., a flattener) between which the bacon slices would be conveyed to produce a flatter product.
`
`51. The fourth piece of equipment shown in Mr. Howard’s sketch is the spiral oven in
`
`which the bacon is cooked as it is conveyed upwardly in a spiral pattern from a bottom inlet to an
`
`upper outlet of the oven.
`
`52. The final piece of equipment is a chiller for chilling the cooked product.
`
`53. Mr. Howard’s conception of the use of a microwave oven as a preheater prior to
`
`the spiral oven is further corroborated by Mr. Howard’s reference in the 2004 sketch to “Ferrite.”
`
`Geoff Rawes, who is also mentioned in the 2004 sketch, was the president of the slicer
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00546-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 13 of 27 PageID #: 13
`
`manufacturer, Grote Co. Mr. Rawes retired from Grote Co. in February 2008.
`
`54. Mr. Howard’s 2004 sketch is shown again below next to Figure 1 of the ’498
`
`Patent. For comparison purposes, rectangles highlighting the same subject matter (i.e., a Grote
`
`slicer, followed by a microwave oven, followed by a spiral oven having a bottom inlet and an
`
`upper outlet) relevant to the claims of the ’498 Patent have been added to the drawings. In terms
`
`of the relevant subject matter of the claims of the ’498 Patent, the drawings are the same.
`
`
`55. Mr. Howard successfully performed the Unitherm Process, without preheating, in
`
`April and May 2006 using a Unitherm Mini Spiral Oven. The reduction to practice was recorded
`
`on video and in a May 4, 2006 file memo titled “Bacon Test Cook” which was prepared by Mr.
`
`Howard.
`
`56. As recorded in the memo, the bacon slices were fully enveloped in a superheated
`
`steam cooking medium which filled the spiral oven. In the same manner as specified in the claims
`
`of the ’498 Patent, the superheated steam was injected into the spiral oven from an external steam
`
`generator and thus operated to heat the cooking chamber. As also specified in the claims of the
`
`’498 Patent, the May 4, 2006 memo notes that the thickness of the bacon slices will typically be
`
`not more than 5 millimeters (0.2 inches).
`
`57.
`
`In addition to the external heat provided by injecting the superheated steam, the
`
`cooking medium circulating in the oven was also heated, using heating elements within the oven,
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00546-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 14 of 27 PageID #: 14
`
`to help preheat the oven and to assist in maintaining the desired operating temperature. The oven
`
`heating elements used were electrical elements. However, Mr. Howard noted in the May 4, 2006
`
`memo that thermal oil heating elements, which are commonly used in spiral ovens, could
`
`alternatively be used for conducting the Unitherm Process at oven temperatures below 400°F.
`
`58. Although the reduction to practice in May 2006 did not involve the use of a
`
`preheater, Mr. Howard observed that (i) the excess amount of superheated steam which was
`
`injected into the spiral oven was being expelled from the oven inlet and outlet; (ii) the excess
`
`superheated steam expelled from the inlet was contacting the cold, raw bacon on the infeed
`
`portion of the oven conveyor belt prior to entering the oven; and (iii) the resultant heating of the
`
`bacon slices prior to entering the oven had the effect of relaxing the bacon, which caused that the
`
`slices to lay flatter on the conveyor, as opposed to having something of a banana-type curvature.
`
`David Howard Fully Disclosed and Taught the
`Claimed Process to Hormel and the Inventors Named on the ’498 Patent
`
`59. Mr. Howard approached Hormel in June 2007 to determine Hormel’s interest in
`
`replacing its microwave bacon lines with the Unitherm Process. Mr. Howard told Hormel’s vice
`
`president, Larry Pfeil, that the Unitherm Process involved cooking bacon using superheated
`
`steam. Mr. Howard also told Ron Christensen of Hormel that the Unitherm Process used a spiral
`
`oven.
`
`60. Hormel’s reaction was that its “opportunity to get ahead of the competition is to
`
`jump on this immediately.”
`
`61. On July 20, 2007, immediately after the parties signed the Mutual Confidential
`
`Disclosure Agreement (the “MCDA”), David Howard, who was accompanied by Plaintiff’s then
`
`Commercial Vice President, Tom Van Doorn, described the Unitherm Process to Hormel in detail,
`
`including Mr. Howard’s version of the Unitherm Process which included the addition of an
`
`optional preheating step prior to cooking and browning the bacon slices using superheated steam
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00546-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 15 of 27 PageID #: 15
`
`in a spiral oven.
`
`62. Richard Herreid and Brian Srsen, named by Hormel as “inventors” on the ’498
`
`Patent, attended this presentation.
`
`63. Mr. Van Doorn has confirmed that in Mr. Howard’s presentation, Mr. Howard
`
`disclosed to Hormel the concept of preheating the bacon slices in a microwave oven prior to
`
`cooking the bacon using superheated steam in the spiral oven. See Exhibit E, Declaration of
`
`Thomas Van Doorn, Sr.
`
`64.
`
`In his presentation to Hormel on July 20, 2007, Mr. Howard (a) discussed his
`
`extensive background, experience, and prior discoveries in bacon cooking and (b) fully disclosed
`
`his invention of the processes, his reduction to practice of the Unitherm Process, and all of the
`
`information relevant to the version of the Unitherm Process which is now recited in the claims of
`
`the ’498 Patent including:
`
`a. The use of a preheater prior to cooking and browning the bacon slices in a
`
`substantially 100% superheated steam environment in a spiral oven;
`
`b. The preheater could be a microwave oven, a radio frequency heater, a RapidFlow
`
`oven or other linear oven using hot air as the heating medium, an infrared oven, or
`
`a superheated steam heater;
`
`c. Plaintiff had earlier been in discussions with Ferrite regarding the possible
`
`purchase of the Ferrite company;
`
`d. A Ferrite microwave oven would be a good option for the preheating step;
`
`e. Alternatively, the use of a microwave oven for preheating the bacon could be of
`
`interest to Hormel as a means of salvaging and reusing microwave oven cabinets
`
`which would otherwise be taken out of operation as Hormel’s 100% microwave
`
`cooking lines were replaced with the Unitherm Process systems;
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00546-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 16 of 27 PageID #: 16
`
`
`
`f. The microwave or other preheater could be used to thaw the product after slicing or
`
`could be used to further preheat the product to any degree desired so long as (i) the
`
`preheated product did not reach a temperature of 212° F and (ii) the cooking and
`
`browning process was completed in the superheated steam environment in the
`
`spiral oven;
`
`g. Preheating the product would reduce the heating requirements in the spiral oven
`
`per pound of product and could therefore be used as a means to reduce the size of
`
`the spiral oven and/or increase product throughput and production rates;
`
`h. The effect of preheating the raw bacon slices to the rendering temperature of the
`
`bacon fat and beyond is that a hot fluid layer containing rendered fat forms on the
`
`surface of the product and the fluid begins to drip. The hot liquefied fat on the
`
`preheated product entering the spiral oven significantly reduces or eliminates the
`
`formation and interaction of condensed steam on the surface of the product as
`
`compared to the amount of condensate which forms on and interacts with the
`
`exposed surface of a cold, non-preheated product which enters the oven at the belly
`
`slicing temperature (i.e., circa 26° F);
`
`i. The Unitherm Process, with or without preheating, produces a fully cooked bacon
`
`product (i.e., a product which has been rendered to less than 40% of its raw weight)
`
`which resembles pan-fried bacon, is entirely safe for human consumption and has
`
`increased shelf life (i.e., has a water activity level of less than 0.92);
`
`j. Performing the cooking process in the spiral oven at a temperature above the
`
`smoke point of the fat (i.e., above 375° F) imparts what Mr. Howard referred to as
`
`a “roasting” flavor to the product, and therefore Mr. Howard advised that
`
`demonstrations should be conducted at temperatures in the spiral oven both below
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-00546-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/15/21 Page 17 of 27 PageID #: 17
`
`
`
`and above the smoke point so that Hormel could evaluate whether it preferred the
`
`product with or without the roasted flavor;
`
`k. For the best product and the safest operation in terms of both fire prevention and
`
`food safety, sufficient superheated steam should be injected into the spiral oven so
`
`that the bacon is cooked in a substantially 100% superheated steam environment;
`
`l. The superheated steam is injected into the oven from an external generator which
`
`heats the cooking chamber of the spiral oven;
`
`m. In addition to the external heat delivered into the spiral oven by the superheated
`
`steam, heat is also provided in the oven by circulating the cooking medium in the
`
`oven over a set of internal heating elements;
`
`n. The heating elements in the spiral oven can be electric, thermal oil or gas elements,
`
`with thermal oil being a viable option if a low temperature and/or non- roasting
`
`operation below 400°F is preferred; and
`
`o. The use of the Unitherm Process, with or without preheating, to produce other
`
`alternative products including precooked bacon bits.
`
`65. As confirmed by the deposition testimony of Mr. Van Doorn and of Craig
`
`Bernheimer, a former employee of Plaintiff, in the litigation between Plaintiff and Hormel in
`
`Minnesota, Mr. Howard not only initially disclosed and explained the preheating concept to
`
`Hormel to thaw the product and/or to take the product to a molten state, but continued to discuss
`
`these concepts throughout the performance of t