JJ Quality LLC v. MedInfo Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: JJ Quality LLC (California)
  • Defendant: MedInfo, Inc. (Colorado)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lynch LLP
• Case Identification: 3:24-cv-01512, S.D. Cal., 08/26/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant directed its patent enforcement campaign at Plaintiff, a California resident, by filing a complaint with a third-party tribunal (Amazon.com), and because Defendant allegedly sells its own products to retailers within the judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its foldable clipboard product does not infringe Defendant’s patent related to foldable clipboards.
• Technical Context: The technology involves multi-panel clipboards that fold into a compact size for portability, a feature particularly relevant for mobile professionals such as medical personnel.
• Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendant’s patent infringement complaint filed with Amazon.com on or around August 7, 2024, which sought to halt Plaintiff’s sales on the platform. Plaintiff filed this declaratory judgment action in response.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 12,036,812 - "Foldable Clipboard"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,036,812, "Foldable Clipboard," issued July 16, 2024 (the “’812 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a need for a transportable writing surface, noting that conventional clipboards are often "large or otherwise cumbersome for a user, including during transportation and/or storage" (’812 Patent, col. 1:29-32).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a clipboard constructed from at least three rigid support panels connected by hinges. This design allows the clipboard to transition from a large, unfolded state with a "substantially constant and consistent thickness" for writing, to a compact, folded state for easy transport ('812 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:47-59). The specific arrangement and offsetting of the hinges are described as key to enabling this functionality while maintaining a usable surface (e.g., Fig. 1A).
• Technical Importance: The design aims to provide a portable yet sturdy writing platform for professionals, such as doctors or nurses, who may need to carry the device in a coat pocket (’812 Patent, col. 8:30-34, Fig. 10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement as to all claims of the ’812 Patent without specifying any particular claims asserted by the Defendant (Compl. ¶22). Independent claim 1 is representative and foundational.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a foldable clipboard comprising:
  • A top support panel with a top upper surface and at least one set of apertures for an attachment feature.
  • A middle support panel with a middle upper surface.
  • A bottom support panel with a bottom upper surface.
  • A first hinge coupling the top and middle panels, including a first and second hinge plate.
  • A second hinge coupling the middle and bottom panels, including a third and fourth hinge plate.
  • A specific positional relationship for the hinge plates, where they are positioned outward from the side portions of the panels by different, specified distances ("first distance" and "second distance").
  • The capability of transitioning between folded and unfolded configurations.
  • The formation of a "combined upper surface having a substantially constant and consistent thickness" when unfolded.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused product is Plaintiff’s clipboard, identified in the complaint by its Amazon Standard Identification Number (ASIN) B0CKLXPBL7 (Compl. ¶22). Plaintiff markets its products under the registered trademark "First Lifesaver" (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the product as a clipboard and notes that Plaintiff’s business involves the "design, development, and sale of products that nurses and other medical professionals may find useful in their work" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint includes a screenshot of the plaintiff's Amazon store page, which displays the product and contains the tagline "Designed by Nurses, for Nurses!" (Compl. ¶10, Ex. 3). The complaint alleges that the Amazon listings for the accused product represent a "substantial portion of Plaintiff's business" (Compl. ¶18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to construct a claim chart mapping specific product features to claim elements. It makes a general denial of infringement of any claim, stating that "The accused clipboard does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any claim of the '812 Patent" (Compl. ¶23). The dispute stems from an infringement notice Defendant sent to Amazon, the specific contents of which are not detailed in the complaint (Compl. ¶9).

A potential infringement theory from the Defendant would need to map the features of the Plaintiff’s clipboard to the elements of an independent claim, such as Claim 1 of the ’812 Patent.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may revolve around the specific positional limitations of the hinges recited in the claims. For example, Claim 1 requires a "first hinge plate" to be "positioned outward from a first side portion of the top support panel an amount substantially equal to a first distance," while other hinge plates have different positional requirements relative to a "second distance" (’812 Patent, col. 19:35-49). The case may turn on whether the accused product's physical construction meets these precise geometric constraints.
• Technical Questions: A factual question is whether the accused product, when unfolded, forms a "combined upper surface having a substantially constant and consistent thickness" as required by the claims (’812 Patent, col. 20:1-4). This raises the issue of how much seam, gap, or misalignment is permissible before the surface is no longer "substantially constant and consistent."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"substantially equal to a first distance / a second distance"

• Context and Importance: This language appears in Claim 1 and its dependents, defining the specific offset of the hinge plates from the panel edges. The term "substantially" introduces ambiguity. The resolution of this term's scope is critical, as a narrow construction tied to specific examples in the patent could allow a product with even minor dimensional differences to be found non-infringing. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement depends on a precise physical configuration rather than just a general function.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that numerical values may be modified by "approximately 5%" and that the term "about" should be interpreted as "plus or minus 5% of the stated value," suggesting some flexibility was contemplated (’812 Patent, col. 6:13-23).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides a non-limiting example with highly specific dimensions for the hinge plate offsets (e.g., "0.035 inches outward" and "0.107 inches outward") (’812 Patent, col. 16:46-67). A party could argue that "substantially equal" should be understood in the context of the specific, different distances disclosed in this embodiment.

"combined upper surface having a substantially constant and consistent thickness"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the quality of the writing surface in the unfolded state. Its construction will determine how flat and seamless the clipboard must be to infringe. This is important for determining if a product with palpable seams between its panels falls within the claim scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent contemplates the use of a flexible cover sheet to "cover the gaps and/or misalignment between adjacent edges," which may suggest that the underlying "combined upper surface" itself is not required to be perfectly seamless to meet the "substantially constant" limitation (’812 Patent, col. 14:5-10).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent emphasizes that the "constant and consistent thickness... facilitates the support panels... being substantially rigid and also facilitates the combined upper surface... being substantially planar, so as to provide a good support for writing" (’812 Patent, col. 11:34-40). This language could support an argument that any significant gap or unevenness that impedes smooth writing falls outside the claim.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes a blanket denial of indirect infringement but alleges no specific facts related to inducement or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶23).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain allegations related to willful infringement. However, it does allege that Defendant's conduct "constitutes an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285," entitling Plaintiff to attorneys' fees (Compl. ¶26). This allegation is based on the Defendant's "patent assertion campaign," specifically the infringement report to Amazon (Compl. ¶4, ¶9).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How much deviation is permitted by the term "substantially" when applied to the precise geometric and positional requirements of the hinge plates in the claims? The case may depend on whether the court adopts a flexible or a rigid interpretation of these dimensional limitations.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of factual correspondence: Does the physical construction of the Plaintiff’s clipboard meet the specific, multi-part structural arrangement claimed in the ’812 Patent, particularly the distinct "first distance" and "second distance" offsets for the hinges, or is there a material difference that places it outside the claim scope?
• Finally, the Plaintiff’s request for exceptional case status raises a procedural question regarding the basis of assertion: What level of pre-suit investigation and evidence did the Defendant possess when it filed its infringement complaint with Amazon, and did that assertion meet the standards required to avoid a finding that the subsequent litigation is exceptional?