The complaint

The case is Fresh Roof, LLC, Hawk Seale LLC, Herlan Industries LLC, MAAD Industries, LLC, Nacu Hernandez, and Austin Hohmann v. SoyLei Innovations, LLC, No. 4:26-cv-00398 (S.D. Iowa, Central Division), filed September 21, 2026, ECF No. 1 (38 pages), with a jury demand. It has ten counts. Count One seeks a declaratory judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patent 12,297,150. The others plead unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), defamation, copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. 501, and intentional interference with business or contractual relations, and seek declarations of no conversion, no breach of fiduciary duty, no basis for judicial expulsion, and no unfair competition.

What the patent covers

U.S. Patent 12,297,150, titled Maintenance Treatments Useful for Improving the Performance of Aged or Brittle Resinous Binders in Paving or Roofing, issued May 13, 2025. The patent names a university research foundation as applicant and assignee, and the complaint says SoyLei holds an exclusive license to it. Claim 1 covers an emulsified coating product containing water, one or more surfactants, and one or more rejuvenators of a recited chemical formula, with the components forming an emulsion. The plaintiffs say SoyLei accused them of making an emulsified coating product with soybean-oil material, a surfactant, and water in violation of claim 1, and they seek a declaration that Fresh Roof's roof rejuvenation product, Hawk Seale's asphalt product, and their conduct do not infringe. (U.S. Patent 12,297,150 claim 1; Compl. paras. 26 to 28, 30, 31, 141.)

What the lawsuit alleges

The plaintiffs say Herlan and MAAD are members of SoyLei, a start-up founded by university researchers, and that Fresh Roof and Hawk Seale are former customers. They allege that after SoyLei lost federal funding and wound down, the two individual plaintiffs were directed to sell its equipment and materials, and that after SoyLei restarted operations it accused Fresh Roof, Hawk Seale, and the two individual plaintiffs of infringing the '150 Patent and filed a state-court complaint for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, judicial expulsion, and unfair competition. They call the patent claims baseless and ask the federal court to decide the claims within its jurisdiction. (Compl. paras. 1 to 4; Counts One to Ten.)

What to watch next

After an extension of SoyLei's time to answer, the docket shows a filing titled "Dismiss" on October 23, 2026 (ECF No. 14), which is not available. Watch for the court's handling of that filing and of the state-court action the complaint describes.