Gene Pool Technologies v. Coastal Harvest: Default Judgment After 1,473 Days
Gene Pool Technologies sued Coastal Harvest in California’s Central District over alleged infringement of five patents covering the MeP 30 system. After over four years of litigation, the court granted default judgment in Gene Pool’s favor, awarding royalty damages — a result that typically signals the defendant ceased active participation in the case.
Five-Patent Cannabis Processing Dispute Ends in Default Judgment
Gene Pool Technologies, Inc. filed suit against Coastal Harvest, LLC on August 6, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint asserted infringement of five U.S. patents — US9587203B2, US9682333B2, US9145532B2, US9144751B2, and US6312528B1 — all directed at cannabis and hemp processing technology. The accused product was Coastal Harvest’s MeP 30 system, a commercial cannabis processing device.
The case closed on August 18, 2025, resolved by default judgment rather than merits adjudication. The court granted Gene Pool’s motion for default judgment and awarded royalty damages. However, the request for prejudgment interest was denied without prejudice, with leave for Gene Pool to file a post-judgment motion seeking that relief. The default judgment mechanism suggests Coastal Harvest failed to maintain an active defense.
At 1,473 days, this case ran considerably longer than most default judgments, which typically conclude faster once the defendant disengages. The extended timeline suggests Coastal Harvest may have participated in early proceedings before eventually defaulting, or that briefing on damages required substantial development. The public record does not disclose any settlement discussions, licensing negotiations, or the specific royalty damages quantum awarded, leaving the commercial terms of resolution undisclosed.
Filing to Default Judgment in 1473 days
4 years — notably long for a case resolved by default judgment
Default judgment entered: what the court’s order means for both parties
Default judgment: defendant’s failure triggers adverse ruling
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to adequately participate in litigation. Here, the court granted Gene Pool’s motion under ECF No. 179, treating the infringement allegations as admitted by virtue of Coastal Harvest’s default. This is not a merits ruling — the court did not independently evaluate patent validity or infringement — but it carries full legal force and is enforceable as any other judgment.
Procedural — not a merits rulingGene Pool secures royalty damages across five patents
Gene Pool Technologies obtained its requested royalty damages against the MeP 30 system. The prejudgment interest denial without prejudice is a procedural deferral, not a substantive loss — Gene Pool retains the right to pursue that interest in a post-judgment motion. The judgment establishes an enforceable damages award, though collection against an entity that defaulted may present practical challenges.
Royalty damages awardedCoastal Harvest faces enforceable judgment without contesting infringement
By defaulting, Coastal Harvest forfeited the right to contest infringement, challenge patent validity, or dispute the royalty damages calculation. The judgment is now enforceable in federal court and may be used to pursue assets. Coastal Harvest’s only remaining options are a post-judgment motion to vacate the default (under FRCP Rule 55(c) or 60(b)) or to negotiate a settlement of the outstanding judgment amount.
No merits defenses preservedUncontested judgment strengthens Gene Pool’s portfolio enforcement posture
A default judgment, while not a full merits victory, signals to the cannabis processing sector that Gene Pool is prepared to pursue enforcement to judgment. The five-patent portfolio covering processing system technology remains fully intact and unchallenged by IPR or validity adjudication. Other MeP 30 users or competitors deploying similar processing technology should treat this judgment as a marker of active enforcement intent.
Portfolio enforcement signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Gene Pool Technologies, Inc. | Company | Cannabis/hemp processing IP holding company — holder of US9587203B2 and four related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Coastal Harvest, LLC | Company | Cannabis processing equipment company; maker of the accused MeP 30 systemSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew J Fossum | Attorney | Counsel for Gene Pool Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kristopher M Dawes | Attorney | Counsel for Gene Pool Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ryan R. Owens | Attorney | Counsel for Gene Pool Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tracy M. McGovern | Attorney | Counsel for Gene Pool Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Frohnmayer Deatherage Jamieson Moore Armosino and McGovern | Law Firm | Representing Gene Pool Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Spearhead Legal LLP | Law Firm | Representing Gene Pool Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James R. Gourley | Attorney | Counsel for Coastal Harvest, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael C. Mackey | Attorney | Counsel for Coastal Harvest, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Timothy L Alger | Attorney | Counsel for Coastal Harvest, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Carstens Allen and Gourley LLP | Law Firm | Representing Coastal Harvest, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Harris Sliwoski LLP | Law Firm | Representing Coastal Harvest, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Mackey Law Firm PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Coastal Harvest, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order granting default judgment on ECF No. 179 operates as a full adjudication of liability by virtue of Coastal Harvest’s failure to defend. The royalty damages award reflects Gene Pool’s submitted damages theory, which the court accepted absent opposition. The without-prejudice denial of prejudgment interest is procedurally significant — it does not extinguish that claim but defers it, meaning the final damages quantum is not yet fixed. The judgment does not constitute a finding that the five patents are valid or infringed on the merits.
US9587203B2 and four further patents — cannabis and hemp processing systems
The five asserted patents — US9587203B2, US9682333B2, US9145532B2, US9144751B2, and US6312528B1 — collectively cover cannabis and hemp processing system technology. The earliest, US6312528B1 (application US09/031901), predates the modern cannabis industry and suggests foundational coverage of extraction or processing methodology. The 2013–2015 era filings (US14/070972, US14/070942, US14/834872, US14/834851) appear to cover more contemporary processing apparatus and system configurations relevant to commercial-scale operations like the MeP 30.
This portfolio’s breadth — spanning an early foundational patent through to 2015-era system patents — creates layered coverage that is difficult for competitors to design around without addressing each generation of claims independently. For cannabis processing equipment manufacturers, the portfolio represents a meaningful enforcement risk, particularly given the default judgment in this case signals Gene Pool’s willingness to litigate to conclusion. The MeP 30 system’s commercial relevance in the sector makes this portfolio’s scope commercially significant.
Should you run an FTO against Gene Pool’s cannabis processing patent portfolio?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or commercialising cannabis or hemp processing equipment in the United States should assess freedom-to-operate against Gene Pool’s five-patent portfolio. The MeP 30 system was the accused product here, but the asserted claims may cover broader processing system configurations. Companies distributing comparable processing systems — particularly those involving separation, extraction, or mechanical handling of cannabis plant material — face direct exposure if claim overlap exists.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map product specifications against the claim language of US9587203B2, US9682333B2, US9145532B2, US9144751B2, and US6312528B1 simultaneously. Eureka identifies claim-level risk, surfaces relevant prior art that could support invalidity arguments, and flags continuation or divisional applications that may extend portfolio coverage — providing a structured risk picture before product launch or market entry.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9587203B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar cannabis processing patent infringement cases in federal court
Cases involving cannabis and hemp processing equipment patents in U.S. district courts, including C.D. California, with comparable multi-patent enforcement strategies.
What this case signals for the cannabis processing IP landscape
A five-patent default judgment in C.D. California signals active enforcement in an IP sector that remains underexamined by competitors.
Gene Pool’s portfolio is intact and now backed by a federal judgment
None of the five asserted patents were subjected to IPR, validity challenge, or claim construction rulings. The default judgment leaves them fully in force. Any company operating cannabis or hemp processing equipment with technical overlap should conduct FTO analysis against this portfolio as a precautionary step.
Default judgments are enforceable but collection risk is real
The practical value of a default judgment depends on the defendant’s ability to satisfy the award. Coastal Harvest’s disengagement from the litigation raises questions about its operational status. Gene Pool’s post-judgment interest motion, if filed, will further define the total award scope — worth monitoring for those tracking enforcement economics in this sector.
Gene v Coastal — key questions answered
The court granted Gene Pool Technologies’ motion for default judgment against Coastal Harvest, LLC. Gene Pool was awarded royalty damages. The request for prejudgment interest was denied without prejudice, with leave to file a post-judgment motion. The case closed on August 18, 2025, after 1,473 days of litigation.
Gene Pool asserted five U.S. patents: US9587203B2, US9682333B2, US9145532B2, US9144751B2, and US6312528B1. These patents relate to cannabis and hemp processing system technology. The accused product was Coastal Harvest’s MeP 30 system.
A default judgment treats the plaintiff’s allegations as admitted due to the defendant’s failure to defend. It is not a merits ruling on patent validity or infringement. However, it carries full legal force and is enforceable as any other federal court judgment. The defendant may seek to vacate the default under FRCP Rule 55(c) or 60(b) if it can show good cause.
Coastal Harvest’s primary options are a post-judgment motion to vacate the default judgment or negotiation to settle the outstanding damages award. The default does not preclude a future IPR petition at the USPTO challenging patent validity, although that would not automatically undo the federal court judgment. Practically, Coastal Harvest’s disengagement from litigation suggests limited likelihood of further challenge.
The without-prejudice denial means the court has not permanently rejected Gene Pool’s request for prejudgment interest. Gene Pool retains the right to file a post-judgment motion seeking that relief. This is a procedural deferral rather than a substantive loss. The total damages award therefore remains potentially subject to upward adjustment once Gene Pool files and the court rules on that post-judgment motion.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.