DCT
1:17-cv-01771
Mondevices Inc v. LEDO Network Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Mondevices, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: LEDO Network, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: DLA PIPER LLP (US)
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01771, D. Del., 12/07/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant being a corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Sense-U" wearable baby monitor infringes a patent related to a method and system for securely clipping a sensor onto an article of clothing.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns wearable health monitoring devices, specifically addressing the challenge of reliably and non-intrusively attaching sensors to a user, such as an infant, to monitor vital signals.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with written notice of infringement via a letter dated October 18, 2017, which was received on October 20, 2017. This alleged pre-suit notice forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-01-03 | ’456 Patent Priority Date |
| 2017-07-21 | Accused Product Sales Allegedly Began |
| 2017-09-05 | ’456 Patent Issued |
| 2017-10-18 | Plaintiff Sent Notice Letter to Defendant |
| 2017-10-20 | Defendant Received Notice Letter |
| 2017-12-07 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,750,456, “Method and System of Attachment and Detection of Attachment of a Wearable Sensor to Clothing Material,” issued September 5, 2017.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art wearable health monitors as often being restrictive or intrusive, particularly for infants, by using tight straps or adhesive materials that can irritate skin (ʼ456 Patent, col. 1:24-30). Other solutions that rely on special pockets or static placements on wristbands do not ensure secure attachment, leading to potential false alarms or poor measurements (ʼ456 Patent, col. 1:43-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a two-part attachment system for a wearable sensor. It consists of an inner sensor assembly and an outer clip-on casing. An article of clothing is "sandwiched" between the two parts as they are pressed together, creating a secure fit that allows the sensor to be attached at any suitable position on the clothing (’456 Patent, col. 2:16-24). This mechanism, illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, aims to provide a universal and reliable attachment method without restricting the user (’456 Patent, col. 3:57-60).
- Technical Importance: The technology aims to provide a "universal attachment" method that improves the reliability and comfort of wearable sensors, especially for sensitive users like newborns for whom traditional attachment methods are unsuitable (’456 Patent, col. 1:35-42).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 6 and dependent claims 1, 4, 7, and 10 (Compl. ¶20).
- Independent Claim 6 recites the following essential elements:
- A wearable sensor comprising:
- an outer clip-on casing having an opening; and
- a sensor assembly configured to be received and secured into the outer clip-on casing opening;
- wherein an article of clothing is positioned between the outer clip-on casing and the sensor such that the same results in a secure fit between clip-on casing and sensor,
- said sensor being positioned adjacent a skin of a user,
- and being further configured to be in intermittent direct contact with the skin of the user when the article of clothing is worn.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Sense-U Baby Breathing Movement Monitor" (the "Sense-U monitor") (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Sense-U monitor is described as a wearable sensor that attaches to an article of clothing to monitor an infant (Compl. ¶13, ¶22). The complaint includes a visual depicting the Sense-U monitor as a two-part device, consisting of a main sensor unit and an outer ring-shaped clip (Compl. ¶22). It is alleged to function by being clipped onto clothing, such as a diaper or pajamas, with the fabric held between the two components (Compl. ¶23).
- The complaint alleges the product is sold and offered for sale on websites including Amazon.com and ebay.com (Compl. ¶10, ¶13, ¶14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
- The complaint provides infringement allegations for representative independent claim 6.
’456 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A wearable sensor comprising: an outer clip-on casing having an opening; and a sensor assembly configured to be received and secured into the outer clip-on casing opening; | The Sense-U monitor is a wearable sensor with an outer clip-on casing with an opening and a sensor assembly that is received and secured into that opening. The complaint provides a visual of the disassembled device showing these two components (Compl. ¶22). | ¶22 | col. 2:17-20 |
| wherein an article of clothing is positioned between the outer clip-on casing and the sensor such that the same results in a secure fit between clip-on casing and sensor, | The Sense-U monitor is configured to be attached to clothing by positioning the fabric between the outer casing and the sensor assembly. The complaint includes a picture of the Sense-U monitor attached to an article of clothing to illustrate this functionality (Compl. p. 6). | ¶23 | col. 2:20-24 |
| said sensor being positioned adjacent a skin of a user, | The complaint alleges that when the Sense-U monitor is attached to clothing, the sensor is positioned adjacent to the user's skin. | ¶23 | col. 5:42-43 |
| and being further configured to be in intermittent direct contact with the skin of the user when the article of clothing is worn. | The complaint alleges that at least a portion of the Sense-U monitor is configured to be in intermittent direct contact with the user's skin when attached to clothing. | ¶23 | col. 5:43-45 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The dispute may center on the scope of the phrase "intermittent direct contact with the skin." A primary question for the court will be whether a device that clips over an article of clothing can, as a matter of claim construction, make "direct contact" with the user's skin, or if the intervening fabric necessarily prevents such contact.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question is what evidence exists to show that the accused Sense-U monitor is "configured to be" in direct contact with skin. The complaint alleges this, but the defense will likely argue that the product is designed to function with a layer of clothing always separating the sensor from the skin, raising the question of whether its configuration inherently prevents, rather than enables, direct contact.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "intermittent direct contact with the skin"
- Context and Importance: This limitation appears in the dispositive independent claim 6 and is central to the infringement analysis. The viability of Plaintiff's case may depend on whether the accused monitor, which attaches over fabric, can be shown to meet this requirement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the physical nature of a clip-on device creates an inherent ambiguity regarding what constitutes "direct contact."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader scope might emphasize the term "intermittent," suggesting that contact need not be constant or perfect, and "configured to be," suggesting that the device's design merely needs to allow for the possibility of contact (e.g., through shifting fabric), not guarantee it. The patent's general goal of improving signal quality could be used to argue that some form of close proximity or occasional contact is what was contemplated (’456 Patent, col. 1:30-33).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower scope will likely focus on the word "direct," arguing it means unmediated physical touching. They may point to the patent’s description and figures, such as FIG. 2, which show an article of clothing (30) "sandwiched between the sensor 12 and clip-on casing 20" (’456 Patent, col. 4:30-32). This description could be interpreted to mean the clothing acts as a permanent barrier, making "direct" contact with the skin impossible.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement.
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged actual knowledge of the ’456 Patent since at least October 20, 2017, the date it allegedly received Plaintiff's notice letter (Compl. ¶12, ¶26). The allegation covers both pre-suit and ongoing conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may depend on the answers to two central questions:
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "direct contact," in the context of a device that sandwiches an "article of clothing" between its components, be construed to be met when a layer of fabric is inherently present between the sensor and the user’s skin?
A key evidentiary question will be one of operational reality: what factual proof can be presented to demonstrate that the accused Sense-U monitor, as it is actually used, makes the "intermittent direct contact with the skin" required by the claim, or is it merely positioned adjacent to the skin, separated by clothing?