Sesaco v. Equinom: Sesame Seed Patent Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice After 1,343 Days
Sesaco Corporation brought a patent infringement action against Israeli agri-biotech firm Equinom Ltd. and individual Ruben Joe Guzman, asserting two U.S. patents covering specialty sesame seed characteristics. The case concluded via joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice — a resolution that permanently closes the door on these specific claims — after nearly four years in the Western District of Texas.
Four-Year Sesame Seed IP Dispute Ends in Permanent Joint Dismissal
Sesaco Corporation, a Texas-based sesame seed breeding company and holder of US8080707B2 and US8656692B2, filed suit on October 16, 2020 in the Western District of Texas against Equinom Ltd., an Israeli agricultural biotechnology company, and individual defendant Ruben Joe Guzman. The infringement action centred on patented sesame seed varieties with specific industrial and nutritional characteristics, a commercially sensitive area as demand for specialty sesame grows globally.
The case concluded on June 20, 2024, when Judge David Alan Ezra granted the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal (Dkt. #72). The dismissal was entered with prejudice, meaning Sesaco is permanently barred from re-filing the same claims against Equinom and Guzman in any federal court. Notably, each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and legal fees — a mutual cost allocation consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a courtroom victory by either side.
The 1,343-day duration suggests the parties engaged in substantive litigation activity — including likely claim construction, discovery, and pre-trial proceedings — before reaching a resolution. The joint and voluntary nature of the stipulation, combined with the with-prejudice designation and mutual cost allocation, is broadly consistent with an out-of-court settlement, though the public record does not disclose any financial terms, licensing arrangements, or admissions of infringement. What drove the parties to resolve at this stage rather than at trial remains unknown from the docket.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 1343 days
1,343 days — nearly 4 years from filing to joint dismissal, above median for W.D. Texas patent cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
With-prejudice dismissal permanently extinguishes Sesaco’s claims
A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Sesaco cannot refile these infringement claims — based on US8080707B2 and US8656692B2 — against Equinom or Guzman in any federal court. The joint stipulation signals both parties consented to this finality, which is a hallmark of a negotiated exit rather than a unilateral withdrawal.
Permanent bar on re-filingSesaco closes claims — patents remain in force but enforcement is curtailed
Although US8080707B2 and US8656692B2 remain granted and enforceable on their face, Sesaco has permanently surrendered its right to pursue these specific defendants on these claims. The with-prejudice disposition may signal a licensing arrangement or commercial agreement reached privately, but no such terms appear in the public record. Sesaco retains the ability to enforce the patents against third parties not party to this suit.
Patents intact; this dispute closedEquinom and Guzman exit with permanent protection from these claims
The with-prejudice dismissal gives Equinom Ltd. and Ruben Joe Guzman certainty: Sesaco cannot revive these specific patent claims against them. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement means neither side paid the other’s legal fees, which is consistent with a balanced negotiated outcome. Equinom may still face exposure from other patent holders in the specialty sesame seed space, and the patents themselves remain valid.
No fee award; claims permanently barredSpecialty sesame IP landscape: settlement signals competitive tension remains high
The near-four-year duration and with-prejudice mutual exit suggests the sesame seed patent space is commercially significant enough to sustain prolonged litigation. For companies developing or commercialising IND sesame seed varieties, this case signals that IP rights in this niche agricultural domain are actively enforced. R&D teams working on sesame breeding programmes should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against Sesaco’s portfolio before commercialising novel varieties.
FTO recommended for sesame breedersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Sesaco Corporation | Company | Sesame seed breeding company — holder of US8080707B2 and US8656692B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Equinom Ltd. | Company | Equinom Ltd.: Israeli agri-biotech firm; Ruben Joe Guzman: individual co-defendantSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Ruben Joe Guzman | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brendan Robert Zee-Cheng | Attorney | Counsel for Sesaco CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kevin Koronka | Attorney | Counsel for Sesaco CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew R. Grant | Attorney | Counsel for Sesaco CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Philip D. Segrest, Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Sesaco CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas H. Watkins | Attorney | Counsel for Sesaco CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Husch Blackwell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Sesaco CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Clyde Shuman | Attorney | Counsel for Equinom Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David A. Loewenstein | Attorney | Counsel for Equinom Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric J.R. Nichols | Attorney | Counsel for Equinom Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Karson Karl Thompson | Attorney | Counsel for Equinom Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Leslie Jill Kushner | Attorney | Counsel for Equinom Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Butler Snow LLP | Law Firm | Representing Equinom Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP | Law Firm | Representing Equinom Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge David Alan Ezra | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the full language of the joint stipulation, dismissing all claims and causes of action ‘in their entirety WITH prejudice.’ The explicit with-prejudice designation — capitalised in the order — underscores its finality. The mutual cost-bearing provision (‘each will bear their own costs’) is characteristic of a negotiated resolution and is not a fee-shifting award. The order does not address the merits of the underlying infringement allegations, leaving the patents’ validity and scope untouched for potential future disputes with third parties.
US8080707B2 & US8656692B2 — IND Sesame Seed Characteristics Patents
US8080707B2 (application no. US12/041257) and US8656692B2 (application no. US12/946720) both relate to sesame seed varieties carrying defined industrial-grade (IND) characteristics — likely encompassing specific traits such as hull-less or semi-hull-less seed morphology, oil content profiles, and agronomic performance parameters. These patents sit at the intersection of plant breeding and IP, a technically complex space where claim scope frequently hinges on the precise characterisation of biological and phenotypic traits.
For competitors in the global specialty sesame market — estimated to be growing rapidly on the back of food industry and nutraceutical demand — these two Sesaco patents represent meaningful freedom-to-operate risks. The enforcement action against a technology-focused Israeli agri-biotech company suggests Sesaco is prepared to assert its IP internationally against well-resourced competitors. Any entity commercialising sesame varieties with IND-grade trait profiles should treat these patents as live enforcement instruments, particularly given Sesaco’s demonstrated willingness to litigate for nearly four years.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US8080707B2 and US8656692B2?
Any company developing, commercialising, or importing IND-characteristic sesame seed varieties — including breeders, agricultural technology firms, seed distributors, and food ingredient manufacturers — should conduct a freedom-to-operate assessment against Sesaco’s sesame patent portfolio. This case demonstrates that Sesaco actively monitors and litigates against competitors it believes are infringing, including foreign entities operating in the U.S. market. The two patents cover specific trait-defined seed characteristics, meaning overlap can occur even where seed lines were independently developed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your sesame seed product or breeding programme against the claim scope of US8080707B2 and US8656692B2, flagging relevant independent and dependent claims, prosecution history estoppel risks, and design-around opportunities. Eureka’s citation analysis also surfaces related Sesaco portfolio patents not asserted in this case, giving R&D and product teams a complete clearance picture before commercialisation or market entry.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8080707B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Agricultural Seed Patent Infringement Cases in U.S. District Courts
Cases below involve plant variety and agricultural seed patent infringement disputes in U.S. district courts, with comparable claim structures and enforcement patterns to Sesaco v. Equinom in W.D. Texas.
What this case signals for the specialty sesame seed IP landscape
A four-year infringement action ending in permanent mutual dismissal reveals the commercial weight behind specialty agricultural seed patents.
With-prejudice joint dismissals typically signal undisclosed settlement terms
When both parties jointly stipulate to a with-prejudice dismissal and agree to bear their own costs, the most probable explanation is a private settlement — potentially including licensing, cross-licensing, or product-market demarcation. Companies monitoring the specialty sesame sector should track subsequent commercial announcements from both Sesaco and Equinom for confirmation.
Sesaco’s two patents remain enforceable against the rest of the market
US8080707B2 and US8656692B2 are unaffected by this dismissal in terms of validity or enforceability against third parties. Any competitor developing IND sesame seed varieties with overlapping characteristics should treat these patents as active enforcement risks and conduct FTO analysis before market entry.
Sesaco v Equinom — key questions answered
A with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars Sesaco from refiling the same patent infringement claims against Equinom Ltd. and Ruben Joe Guzman. However, US8080707B2 and US8656692B2 remain valid and enforceable against any third party not covered by this stipulation. Sesaco retains full ability to assert these patents against other alleged infringers in future actions.
Sesaco asserted two U.S. patents: US8080707B2 (application no. US12/041257) and US8656692B2 (application no. US12/946720). Both relate to IND sesame seed varieties with defined characteristics. The case was filed in the Western District of Texas on October 16, 2020 and closed June 20, 2024.
The public docket does not disclose the specific allegations against Ruben Joe Guzman. However, the joinder of an individual alongside a corporate defendant in agricultural IP disputes is often consistent with allegations of personal participation in infringement, or potentially involvement in the transfer of proprietary seed lines or trade secrets. No confirmed details appear in the public record.
The court ordered that each party bear its own costs, expenses, and legal fees. This is a standard provision in jointly negotiated dismissals and is not a fee-shifting award under 35 U.S.C. § 285. It strongly suggests the parties reached a private commercial resolution rather than one side capitulating, though no settlement terms are publicly disclosed.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice extinguishes Sesaco’s claims only against the named defendants in this case — Equinom Ltd. and Ruben Joe Guzman. The patents themselves are unaffected in terms of validity, enforceability, or claim scope. Sesaco may assert both patents against any other party it believes to be infringing, and competitors in the specialty sesame seed sector should treat them as active enforcement risks.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.