US 10912321

Analysis of U.S. Patent 10,912,321: A Method for Increasing Poultry Weight During Processing

Washington, D.C. - A comprehensive analysis of U.S. Patent No. 10,912,321, titled "Methods of using peracetic acid to treat poultry in a chill tank during processing," reveals a method aimed at increasing the saleable weight of poultry products by treating carcasses with a specific solution during the chilling process. This patent, issued to Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc., has recently been the subject of a significant ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Patent Overview

• Title: Methods of using peracetic acid to treat poultry in a chill tank during processing
• Assignee: Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc.
• Inventors: Michael S. Harvey, Jonathan N. Howarth
• Filing Date: August 16, 2011
• Issue Date: February 9, 2021
• Abstract: The patent discloses methods for treating poultry during processing to increase its weight. These methods can be performed in a chill tank or other reservoirs and utilize either equilibrium or non-equilibrium peracetic acid. The non-equilibrium peracetic acid can be prepared from hydrogen peroxide and a liquid acetyl precursor, such as triacetin. The core of the method involves contacting a poultry carcass with peracetic acid-containing water at a pH of about 6 to about 9.

Litigation Update

Recent legal challenges have impacted the enforceability of this patent. On May 4, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in case number 24-2160, ENVIRO TECH CHEMICAL SERVICES, INC. v. SAFE FOODS CORP., affirmed a lower court's decision that several claims of the '321 patent are invalid due to indefiniteness. The court found that the term "about" in the context of the claimed pH range of "about 7.6 to about 10" was not sufficiently defined by the patent's specification, rendering the claims unclear to a person skilled in the art.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

An independent claim represents the broadest definition of the invention. An analysis of the independent claims of the '321 patent, prior to the CAFC ruling, reveals the core innovations protected.

Independent Claim 1: This claim outlines a method for increasing the weight of a poultry carcass. The process involves creating a peracetic acid solution in water and then adjusting its pH to a range of approximately 7.6 to 10 using an alkaline source. A poultry carcass is then brought into contact with this pH-adjusted solution. A key aspect is the subsequent monitoring and, if necessary, further adjustment of the solution's pH to maintain it within the specified alkaline range while the carcass is being treated. This controlled alkaline pH environment is presented as the mechanism for increasing the weight of the poultry.

Independent Claim 20: This claim is similar to claim 1 but focuses on a continuous process within a reservoir, such as a chill tank. It specifies providing a peracetic acid solution in the reservoir and adjusting its pH to the alkaline range of about 7.6 to 10. A poultry carcass is then placed in this solution. The claim emphasizes the step of monitoring the pH of the solution while the carcass is in the reservoir and altering it as needed to keep it within the alkaline range. The goal, as with claim 1, is to increase the weight of the poultry carcass.

Independent Claim 34: This claim presents a slight variation on the method. It starts with combining water and an antimicrobial amount of a peracetic acid solution. The pH of this initial mixture is then determined. If the pH is not already within the alkaline range of about 7.6 to 10, it is adjusted accordingly. A poultry carcass is then introduced to the solution. The claim concludes with the requirement to monitor and, if necessary, adjust the pH of the water containing the carcass to maintain the alkaline environment, thereby increasing the carcass's weight.

It is important to note that the CAFC's recent decision on the indefiniteness of the term "about" directly impacts the enforceability of these claims, particularly their specified pH ranges. The court's ruling suggests that the boundaries of the claimed pH ranges were not described with reasonable certainty, a critical requirement for patent validity.