HIP, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corp.

In 2005, Hormel Food Corp. (Hormel) (defendant) decided to improve its preparation process for its precooked-bacon products. It was considering a two-step process that included preheating the bacon before cooking it. In 2007, Hormel met with cooking-equipment manufacturer Unitherm Food Systems, Inc., which later became HIP, Inc. (plaintiff), to discuss using HIP equipment in the process Hormel was developing. HIP employees David Howard and Tom Van Doorn met with Hormel multiple times, and the parties eventually agreed to jointly develop an oven for Hormel’s new process. During the meetings, Howard mentioned the possibility of using infrared at the preheating phase. After further research and development, Hormel settled on a two-step process that required (1) preheating the bacon at a low temperature to create a barrier that preserved the bacon flavor and (2) cooking the bacon at a high temperature in a manner that prevented a charred flavor. Hormel subsequently obtained a patent for its two-step process. With regard to the first, preheating step, the patent’s various claims focused heavily on preheating using a microwave oven. Indeed, all models and examples in the patent were microwave based. However, one patent claim referenced preheating using either a microwave oven, an infrared oven, or hot air. The patent listed four joint inventors, all of whom assigned their interests in the patent to Hormel. In 2021, HIP sued Hormel, alleging that Howard should have been listed as either the sole inventor or a joint inventor on the patent because he made various contributions to the new process. The district court ordered that Howard be added to the patent as a joint inventor based solely on his alleged contribution of infrared as an option for the preheating process. Hormel appealed.