Well, that didn’t take long. On January 24, 2025, just thirteen business days after the hearing, the Federal Circuit fully affirmed AGCO’s trial verdict over Deere. And this one wasn’t close, as the Federal Circuit rejected all bases for Deere’s appeal in short order.

First up was Deere’s challenge to the trial court’s denial of its motion for a new trial on infringement. This issue rested on three grounds: (1) that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence; (2) that the district court committed prejudicial error by excluding evidence of an AGCO-Precision patent; and (3) the district court’s claim construction was erroneous. The Federal Court quickly dispensed with Deere’s argument regarding the weight of the evidence, finding that AGCO-Precision presented “ample” evidence of infringement. Specifically, the Federal Circuit found that AGCO-Precision presented more than enough evidence that the accused Speed Tube product removed seeds not by capturing them but by projecting and accelerating them. As noted by the Federal Circuit, this evidence included expert testimony and an expert-narrated video demonstration, as well as testimony from the lead engineer for Speed Tube who staged a live demonstration and explained why the Speed Tube sought to accelerate seeds toward a flighted belt.

The Federal Circuit also rejected Deere’s argument that it was unfairly prejudiced by the exclusion of evidence about an AGCO-Precision patent. Although Deere argued that the patent was relevant because of an AGCO-Precision interrogatory answer, the Federal Circuit quoted the trial court’s finding that the interrogatory established only that feeder wheels were novel but were not used in the Speed Tube. Based on that finding, the trial court found that the probative value of the AGCO-Precision patent was substantially outweighed by the prejudicial nature of a potential mini trial and thus excluded it under Fed. R. Evid. 403. The Federal Circuit found the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

According to the Federal Circuit, the district court’s claim construction was not erroneous. During claim construction, the trial court construed certain terms related to the “seed delivery system.” In doing so, it also rejected AGCO-Precision’s argument that Deere disclaimed any claim scope that would allow a seed to drop by gravity. During opening arguments, Deere showed the jury the court’s construction of the “seed delivery system” terms and included the no disclaimer language on the slide. Later, the district court did not allow Deere to put the no disclaimer language before the jury but did allow Deere to argue that the trial court’s claim construction did not preclude a gravity drop or free fall of the seed. In rejecting Deere’s argument on this issue, the Federal Circuit noted that the district court did not change its claim construction, that the no disclaimer language was not part of the claim construction, and that Deere was allowed to and did argue that the asserted claims do not preclude free fall or gravity drop of the seed. The Federal Circuit also rejected Deere’s contention that AGCO-Precision relitigated claim construction via arguments it made. Instead, the Federal Circuit found that AGCO-Precision appropriately argued that a seed in free fall is evidence of non-infringement.

Lastly, the Federal Circuit rejected Deere’s claim that the district court erred by denying Deere’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of infringement. The Federal Circuit found that Deere did not move for JMOL of infringement and noted that Deere was unable to point to any instance of such a motion before the close of evidence. It also found that Deere was not entitled to rely on AGCO-Precision’s motion for JMOL of noninfringement or the district court’s denial of that motion to satisfy its own obligation to move for JMOL of infringement.

The Federal Circuit’s opinion closes the book on the agricultural equipment industry’s first major IP litigation skirmish of 2025. Rest assured there will be others. In the meantime, we will keep you updated about other relevant IP-related decisions that are likely to affect the industry, starting with the EcoFactor v. Google matter, scheduled for a rare en banc argument on March 13, 2025. That argument will focus on the admissibility of expert testimony on damages and the extent to which a separate license can be used to evaluate a reasonable royalty in a patent infringement suit. Stay tuned for more details.