5:24-cv-01932
Winsford Co LLC v. Raspberry Med Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: The Winsford Company, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Raspberry Med, Inc. (Michigan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
- Case Identification: 5:24-cv-01932, C.D. Cal., 09/10/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district, where Plaintiff has a regular and established place of business.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its dilator storage carts do not infringe Defendant's patent related to storage apparatuses for elongate medical articles.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns specialized cabinets for storing and organizing elongate medical instruments, such as esophageal dilators, in a vertical orientation to minimize contamination.
- Key Procedural History: This action was filed in response to Defendant's alleged threats of litigation, which included sending Plaintiff a demand letter and a draft infringement complaint. The core of the dispute, as framed by the Plaintiff, pre-dates the lawsuit and centers on whether the accused products contain a specific claimed feature.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-09-18 | ’353 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. 62/901,941) |
| 2021-01-01 | Approximate launch of Accused Carts ("at least as early as 2021") |
| 2024-01-16 | ’353 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-01-16 | Defendant sends demand letter to Plaintiff |
| 2024-03-11 | Plaintiff responds to Defendant, asserting non-infringement |
| 2024-08-21 | Defendant sends letter with draft complaint to Plaintiff |
| 2024-09-10 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,872,353 - "Storage apparatus for elongate articles," Issued January 16, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional methods of storing flexible medical articles like esophageal dilators in horizontal trays, which creates a risk of contamination due to the articles being in "constant contact with the horizontal support surface" (’353 Patent, col. 1:29-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a storage apparatus that provides a "suspension system for storing elongate articles in a vertical orientation" (’353 Patent, col. 1:41-43). The core of the solution is a "gripping element" made of a flexible material with apertures that "releasably grips the upper portions of the elongate articles" (’353 Patent, col. 7:9-11), allowing them to hang freely and reducing contact with other surfaces. This system can be incorporated into a movable cabinet (as shown in Fig. 4) or a wall-mounted unit.
- Technical Importance: The described vertical suspension method aims to reduce the risk of patient infection by minimizing surface contact and providing a more sterile storage environment for reusable medical instruments (’353 Patent, col. 1:43-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claims 1, 10, and 17 as being at issue (Compl. ¶11).
- Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus Claim) Essential Elements:
- A container comprising a top panel, a bottom panel, a pair of side panels, a back panel, and an openable door, which cooperate to define an interior;
- At least one mounting rail coupled to the top panel inside the container;
- At least one support frame coupled to the mounting rail, the support frame defining an enclosed support chamber and configured to receive upper portions of the articles;
- The support frame is moveable along the mounting rail;
- A gripping element at a lower region of the support frame, comprising a sheet of flexible material with apertures;
- The gripping element is configured to suspend the articles vertically by releasably gripping their upper portions;
- The gripping element is configured to support the full weight of each article such that their lower ends hang freely.
- The complaint notes that the remaining asserted claims are dependent (Compl. ¶11).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are a line of dilator carts sold by Plaintiff The Winsford Company (d/b/a The Harloff Company) under various model names, including "Short Savary Dilator Drying Cart," "Tall Savary Dilator Storage Cart," and "High Volume Tall Savary Dilator Drying Cart" (collectively, the "Accused Carts") (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Carts are used for storing medical dilators (Compl. ¶15). The complaint alleges that a key feature of the Accused Carts is a support chamber that is "not enclosed as it is missing the paneling on at least the long side of the chamber" (Compl. ¶19). A photograph provided in the complaint shows the upper portion of a cart, with red arrows pointing to what is described as "The open side of the support chamber of the Accused Carts" (Compl. p. 8). The complaint states that Plaintiff has been selling these carts since at least 2021 (Compl. ¶16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The central allegation is that the Accused Carts are missing a critical element required by the independent claims of the ’353 Patent.
’353 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations (per Plaintiff)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a container comprising a top panel, a bottom panel, a pair of side panels, a back panel, and an openable door, which cooperate to define an interior | The complaint does not contest this element. | col. 6:56-60 | |
| at least one support frame coupled to said mounting rail, said support frame defining an enclosed support chamber sized and configured to receive respective upper portions of a plurality of the elongate articles | The Accused Carts allegedly have a support chamber that is not enclosed, as it is "missing the paneling on at least the long side of the chamber." | ¶19 | col. 7:1-5 |
| wherein said support frame is moveable along said mounting rail between retracted and extended positions relative to said interior when said openable door is open | The complaint does not contest this element. | col. 7:5-8 | |
| a gripping element at a lower region of said support frame and spaced below said mounting rail, said gripping element comprising a sheet of flexible material... | The complaint does not contest this element. | col. 7:9-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: The primary dispute will concern the proper interpretation of the claim term "enclosed support chamber." The key question is whether this term requires the support frame to be fully enclosed by panels on all sides, as Plaintiff contends, or if a more open structure can meet the limitation.
- Technical Question: Does the structure identified in the complaint's photograph (p. 8) as "The open side of the support chamber" constitute a structural omission that avoids infringement? The court will need to compare the actual structure of the Accused Carts to the claim language as construed. The complaint alleges this feature is missing both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶18).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "enclosed support chamber"
Context and Importance: This term appears in all three independent claims (1, 10, and 17) and is the sole basis for the non-infringement argument presented in the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 25). The outcome of the case, as currently framed, will likely depend on its construction. Practitioners may focus on this term because the plaintiff has explicitly identified it as the dispositive point of non-infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Defendant's potential argument): The patent repeatedly refers to the overall apparatus as being within an "enclosed container" (e.g., ’353 Patent, col. 2:31). A party could argue that the "enclosed support chamber" need not be independently sealed on all sides but is simply a defined region within the larger enclosed cabinet. The patent's focus is on vertical suspension to prevent contamination, not on the specific degree of chamber enclosure.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Plaintiff's argument): Claim 1 requires the "support frame" itself to "defin[e] an enclosed support chamber." The specification describes the support frame (18) as including "a rigid bottom support panel 20, a top plate 21, a first side plate 23, and a second side plate 25" (’353 Patent, col. 4:48-50). This explicit recitation of top, bottom, and two side plates could be used to argue that a frame must have these components to be "enclosed" as claimed. The complaint's allegation that the Accused Carts are "missing the paneling on at least the long side of the chamber" directly targets this potential structural requirement (Compl. ¶19).
VI. Other Allegations
As this is a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement filed by the accused infringer, it does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement against the Defendant.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this declaratory judgment action appears to rest on two central questions:
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the term "enclosed support chamber"? Does the claim language, in light of the specification's description of a support frame with four enumerated sides, require a structure that is walled on all sides, or can a partially open frame satisfy this limitation?
A key evidentiary question will be one of factual comparison: Based on the court’s construction of the key claim term, does the physical structure of Plaintiff's Accused Carts—which are alleged to have an "open side"—in fact lack a required element of the claim, thereby avoiding infringement both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents?