DCT
3:18-cv-00087
Strategic Operations Inc v. Syndaver Labs Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Strategic Operations, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Syndaver Labs, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Eastman & McCartney LLP
- Case Identification: 3:18-cv-00087, S.D. Cal., 01/15/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of California because Defendant conducts business in the state and district, and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims allegedly occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s “SOF Suit,” a wearable surgical trainer, infringes two patents related to wearable partial task surgical simulators.
- Technical Context: The technology involves realistic, wearable simulators designed for training medical and military first responders to treat trauma injuries in dynamic, interactive scenarios.
- Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. 9,336,693 is a divisional of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. 8,840,403. The ’693 Patent was issued with a terminal disclaimer, which may prevent the patent term from extending beyond that of the ’403 Patent and could impact the calculation of damages.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-06-30 | Priority Date for '403 and '693 Patents |
| 2014-09-23 | '403 Patent Issued |
| 2016-05-10 | '693 Patent Issued |
| 2018-01-15 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,840,403
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,840,403, "Wearable Partial Task Surgical Simulator," Issued September 23, 2014.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that traditional training aids like medical mannequins are limited by their "immobility, weight, expense and minimal interaction with the medical personnel," which reduces the realism and efficacy of trauma response training ('403 Patent, col. 1:46-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a wearable simulator designed to be worn by a live actor, enhancing realism and interaction ('403 Patent, col. 1:56-62). It consists of an outer, skin-like "raiment" covering a "vest" that contains an artificial skeleton (e.g., a rib cage) and prosthetic internal organs. The system includes at least one fluid reservoir and an orifice to simulate bleeding, allowing a user to "selectively expel a blood-like fluid... to simulate a trauma event" ('403 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for dynamic training scenarios that more closely replicate the experience of treating a live person, including "verbal and gesticular interaction" between the trainee and the actor wearing the device ('403 Patent, col. 1:56-62).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts infringement of the '403 Patent generally, with Independent Claim 1 being representative of the core invention (Compl. ¶20).
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’403 Patent requires:
- A "raiment" dimensioned to cover a person's torso, formed as a layer with an outer surface having a color and texture "comparable to human skin."
- At least one "fluid reservoir" within the raiment for holding a "blood-like fluid."
- At least one "orifice" on the raiment's outer surface in fluid communication with the reservoir to allow for selective expulsion of the fluid.
- A "vest" dimensioned to fit on the torso underneath the raiment.
- The vest must have a "first portion" covering part of the chest, a "second portion" attached to the first and forming a cavity, and "third and fourth side portions" attached to the first portion covering parts of the torso's sides.
U.S. Patent No. 9,336,693
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,336,693, "Wearable Partial Task Surgical Simulator," Issued May 10, 2016.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: As a divisional of the '403 Patent, the '693 Patent addresses the same problem: the limitations of static mannequins for realistic, interactive trauma training ('693 Patent, col. 1:47-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention described is functionally identical to that of the '403 Patent, comprising a wearable simulator with a "raiment" and "vest" system to simulate wounds on a live actor ('693 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-29). The system includes a skin-like outer layer, an underlying vest with prosthetic organs, and a mechanism for simulating bleeding.
- Technical Importance: The invention's value lies in creating a "realistic-looking, dynamic" training environment that facilitates interaction and improves the skills of first responders ('693 Patent, col. 2:30-33).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts infringement of the '693 Patent generally, with Independent Claim 1 being representative (Compl. ¶20).
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’693 Patent requires:
- A "raiment" dimensioned to cover a person's torso, with an outer surface having a color and texture "comparable to human skin."
- At least one "fluid reservoir" for a "blood-like fluid" and an "orifice" in fluid communication with it.
- A "vest" dimensioned to fit on the torso underneath the raiment.
- The vest must have a "first portion" covering part of the chest, a "second portion" attached to the first and forming a cavity, and "third and fourth side portions" attached to the first portion.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused product is the "Special Operations Forces ('SOF') Suit" manufactured and sold by Defendant Syndaver (Compl. ¶16).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The SOF Suit is described as a "wearable surgical trainer that can be worn by a live actor" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges it includes a "raiment and vest," an outer surface with a "color and a texture comparable to human skin," an orifice connected to a fluid reservoir for expelling "blood-like fluid," an artificial rib cage, and removable prosthetic organs (Compl. ¶20).
- A photograph in the complaint shows the accused SOF Suit both with its outer skin layer intact and with the layer removed to reveal an underlying structure containing a rib cage and organs (Compl. p. 5). A product sheet attached as Exhibit 3 states the suit can be worn by a live actor and features "internal organs, vasculature and skin that are user repairable and replaceable" (Compl. Ex. 3).
- The complaint alleges that the SOF Suit was developed to "copy StOps' Cut Suit" and to "undercut StOps' Cut Suit business" (Compl. ¶17, ¶24).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'403 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a raiment dimensioned to cover the torso of a person, wherein the raiment is formed as a layer having an inner surface and an outer surface, and wherein the outer surface has a color and a texture comparable to human skin | The SOF Suit allegedly includes a "raiment... for covering the torso of a person" which "has an outer surface with a color and a texture comparable to human skin." | ¶20 | col. 8:1-6 |
| and further wherein the raiment has at least one fluid reservoir for holding a blood-like fluid therein | The SOF Suit is alleged to include a "fluid reservoir" that allows a user to "selectively expel a blood-like fluid." | ¶20 | col. 8:7-8 |
| and is formed with at least one orifice on the outer surface thereof in fluid communication with the reservoir for selectively expelling the blood-like fluid from the reservoir and through the orifice to simulate the trauma event | The SOF Suit allegedly has an "orifice that is in fluid communication with a fluid reservoir, thus allowing the person wearing the SOF Suit to selectively expel a blood-like fluid... to simulate a bleeding wound." | ¶20 | col. 8:9-13 |
| and the device further comprising a vest dimensioned to fit on the torso of a person underneath the raiment | The SOF Suit is alleged to include a "vest for covering the torso of a person." | ¶20 | col. 8:13-15 |
| wherein the vest has a first portion covering at least part of the chest of a person, a second portion attached to the first portion and forming a cavity... and third and fourth side portions attached to the first portion and covering at least part of the sides of the torso of a person | The SOF Suit's vest allegedly "includes an artificial rib cage" and "prosthetic internal human organs" which are positioned to simulate internal trauma. | ¶20 | col. 8:16-21 |
'693 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a raiment dimensioned to cover the torso of a person, wherein the raiment is formed as a layer... and wherein the outer surface has a color and a texture comparable to human skin | The SOF Suit allegedly includes a "raiment... for covering the torso of a person" which "has an outer surface with a color and a texture comparable to human skin." | ¶20 | col. 8:16-21 |
| and further wherein the raiment has at least one fluid reservoir for holding a blood-like fluid therein and is formed with at least one orifice... in fluid communication with the reservoir for selectively expelling the blood-like fluid... to simulate the trauma event | The SOF Suit allegedly has a "fluid reservoir" and an "orifice" in communication, allowing for the expulsion of "blood-like fluid... to simulate a bleeding wound." | ¶20 | col. 8:22-28 |
| a vest dimensioned to fit on the torso of a person underneath the raiment | The SOF Suit is alleged to include a "vest for covering the torso of a person." | ¶20 | col. 8:29-31 |
| wherein the vest has a first portion covering at least part of the chest of a person, a second portion attached to the first portion and forming a cavity... and third and fourth side portions attached to the first portion | The SOF Suit's vest allegedly "includes an artificial rib cage" and "prosthetic internal human organs" which are positioned to simulate internal trauma. | ¶20 | col. 8:32-39 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The core of the dispute may turn on the construction of the terms "raiment" and "vest." The complaint alleges the SOF Suit has both, but a key question for the court will be whether the accused product, which may be a more integrated system, contains two distinct components that meet the definitions of a "raiment" and a "vest" as contemplated by the patents.
- Technical Questions: The claims require a "vest" with a specific structure: a "first portion," a "second portion forming a cavity," and "third and fourth side portions." What evidence the complaint provides that the SOF Suit's internal structure maps onto this precise, four-part definition will be a critical factual question.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "raiment" and "vest"
Context and Importance: These terms are foundational to the asserted independent claims of both patents. The infringement theory depends on demonstrating that the accused SOF Suit is comprised of these two distinct structural elements. Practitioners may focus on these terms because they are not explicitly defined in the specification, and their construction will likely determine whether the single-body accused product can be said to meet the two-part claim limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention as a "raiment fitting over strapped vests," which suggests the two components are separate but used together ('403 Patent, col. 2:3-4). This could support an argument that any system with a distinct outer layer and an inner structural layer meets the limitation, even if they are sold as one product.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict the "raiment" (Fig. 1) and "vest" (Fig. 2A) as clearly separate and distinct physical items ('403 Patent, Figs. 1, 2A). A defendant could argue this implies the claims are limited to devices constructed from two physically separable components, not a single, integrated unit.
The Term: "comparable to human skin"
Context and Importance: This term, appearing in the independent claims of both patents, sets a subjective standard for the realism of the "raiment." Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a term of degree and its meaning is not precisely defined, creating a potential basis for a non-infringement argument based on a factual comparison of the materials.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the outer surface has a "color and a texture that is comparable to human skin" but provides no objective metrics, leaving the term open to a wide range of materials ('403 Patent, col. 2:10-11).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent emphasizes the goal of realism to overcome the limitations of prior art ('403 Patent, col. 1:35-37). A party could argue this context requires a high degree of fidelity, and that a material like "unrealistic silicone rubber" (Compl. Ex. 3) would not be "comparable."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant provides customers with "specific instructions on how to use the SOF Suit" for infringing purposes (Compl. ¶25). It also alleges contributory infringement by claiming Defendant supplies components "especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner" (Compl. ¶26).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s "pre-suit knowledge" of the patents and on the allegation that Defendant "purposefully intended" to copy Plaintiff's product and infringe the patents (Compl. ¶22, ¶24).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the terms "raiment" and "vest," which are described in the patent as components of a system, be construed to read on the potentially integrated structure of the accused SOF Suit? The outcome of this claim construction dispute will be critical.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural mapping: Does the accused SOF Suit's internal frame factually meet the claims' specific multipart structure for a "vest," including a "first portion," a "second portion forming a cavity," and "third and fourth side portions"?
- A central factual dispute will likely concern the nature of the infringement: Was the accused product independently developed, or does the evidence support the complaint's allegation that it was created with the specific intent to copy Plaintiff's product, which would be highly relevant to the question of willfulness?