DCT

1:24-cv-00643

Rampart Ic LLC v. Egg Medical Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00643, D. Del., 05/31/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the defendant, Egg Medical, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "EGGNEST COMPLETE" hanging shield system infringes a patent related to configurable, swinging radiation shielding systems for use in medical procedures.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns radiation protection for medical personnel during procedures like fluoroscopy, aiming to shield them from X-ray exposure without the ergonomic drawbacks of wearable armor or the access limitations of static barriers.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant gained actual knowledge of the patent-in-suit no later than April 2024, following receipt of cease and desist letters from Plaintiff's counsel. The parties' counsel subsequently engaged in correspondence and telephonic discussions regarding their respective positions prior to the filing of the complaint. This pre-suit notice may be used to support a future claim for enhanced damages.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-08-11 U.S. Patent No. 11,660,056 Priority Date
2023-05-30 U.S. Patent No. 11,660,056 Issued
2024-04-10 Defendant allegedly received first cease and desist letter
2024-04-17 Defendant allegedly received second letter with patent
2024-05-03 Defendant's counsel responded to Plaintiff's letters
2024-05-07 Plaintiff's counsel responded to Defendant's letter
2024-05-21 Telephonic discussion between counsel for both parties
2024-05-31 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,660,056 - "Swinging Shielding System for Use with a Radiation Source," Issued May 30, 2023

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the shortcomings of prior art radiation protection for medical staff. Wearable "radiation armor" is heavy, leading to fatigue and orthopedic disorders, while suspended "zero gravity" suits and mobile "cabin" systems are expensive, limit the user's range of motion, and can hinder access to the patient (’056 Patent, col. 2:1-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a radiation shield assembly that interposes a reconfigurable barrier between medical personnel and a radiation source ('056 Patent, col. 2:49-59). As described in the summary and detailed description, the system generally comprises two vertical shield structures supported by a member, such as a mast. These shields can be rotated relative to one another, allowing the barrier to be reconfigured to protect the user while maintaining access to the patient's body for surgical procedures ('056 Patent, col. 2:60-65; col. 6:35-43).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed approach seeks to provide comprehensive radiation shielding without encumbering the medical professional or restricting access to the patient, thereby addressing a critical trade-off in radiological procedure safety ('056 Patent, col. 2:40-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶14).
  • Claim 1 recites a radiation shield assembly for blocking radiation from below a patient table, comprising:
    • a first generally vertical shield supported by a support member;
    • a second generally vertical shield supported by the support member;
    • wherein the first and second shields can be rotated relative to one another about an axis approximately parallel to a longitudinal axis of the support member; and
    • wherein the shields have a height of at least a distance from the table's upper surface to 175 cm (with a -10% tolerance) from the floor.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the prayer for relief requests a judgment of infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶A, p. 4).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused product is Defendant's "EGGNEST COMPLETE" hanging shield system (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the accused product as a "hanging shield system" but does not provide specific details about its construction, materials, or method of operation (Compl. ¶14). The infringement allegation implies that the product is a radiation shield used in medical settings and possesses features corresponding to the elements of Claim 1, as described in Section II. The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the product's commercial importance or market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant infringes at least Claim 1 of the ’056 Patent by "making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing" its "EGGNEST COMPLETE" hanging shield system (Compl. ¶14). The complaint states that a claim chart is attached as Exhibit B; however, this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint document. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Without the claim chart, the narrative infringement theory is that the "EGGNEST COMPLETE" system is a radiation shield assembly that meets all limitations of Claim 1. This includes having a first and second vertical shield mounted on a support member, where the shields are capable of rotating relative to one another around an axis parallel to the support member's axis, and meeting the specific height requirement recited in the claim (Compl. ¶14; ’056 Patent, col. 17:4-17).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the accused "hanging shield system" constitutes a "radiation shield assembly" with a "first generally vertical shield" and a "second generally vertical shield" as those terms are understood in the context of the patent. The physical structure and arrangement of the components of the EGGNEST COMPLETE product will be compared directly to the claim language.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations raise the evidentiary question of whether the accused system's shields can, in fact, be "rotated relative to one another about an axis approximately parallel to a longitudinal axis of the support member." The precise mechanics of the accused device's movement and adjustability will be a focal point. A further critical question is whether the accused shields satisfy the specific dimensional limitation of having "a height of at least a distance from an upper surface of the table to 175 cm (-10%) from a floor."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

1. The Term: "rotated relative to one another about an axis approximately parallel to a longitudinal axis of the support member"

Context and Importance

This term defines the core functional and geometric relationship between the two shields. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the movement capabilities of the accused EGGNEST COMPLETE system fall within the scope of this claimed rotational movement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specific nature of the movement (rotation vs. translation, the location and orientation of the axis) is a potentially dispositive technical feature.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes this relative movement in general terms, likening it to the front and back covers of a book, which could support a construction covering a range of hinged or pivoting motions ('056 Patent, col. 7:37-41). The use of "approximately parallel" also suggests some tolerance is intended ('056 Patent, col. 17:11-13).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, such as FIGS. 1-3, depict a specific embodiment where two distinct shield panels pivot around a central, vertical mast (155) ('056 Patent, FIGS. 1-3). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to this type of configuration, where rotation occurs around a common or nearly common central axis.

2. The Term: "have a height of at least a distance from an upper surface of the table to 175 cm (-10%) from a floor"

Context and Importance

This dimensional limitation appears to be a critical element for distinguishing the invention. The claim language is syntactically complex, and its construction will be essential to determining infringement. The ambiguity of measuring a "height" as "a distance from" one point "to" another point will likely be a central dispute.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue this language should be interpreted functionally to mean the shield provides vertical coverage from the table surface up to a level that is at least 175 cm (-10%) from the floor, thus protecting a standing user. The specification repeatedly emphasizes protecting the user's upper body and head ('056 Patent, col. 9:36-44; col. 18:33-38).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue for a literal interpretation, which may be difficult to apply or even nonsensical, potentially rendering the claim indefinite. The language "height of at least a distance from [point A] to [point B]" is unconventional. A defendant may argue it requires the shield's physical height itself to be equal to this calculated distance, a very specific and potentially limiting requirement.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The prayer for relief includes a request for a judgment of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶A, p. 4). However, the body of the complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims for either induced or contributory infringement, such as references to user manuals, marketing materials, or the sale of non-staple components.

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it alleges that Defendant had "actual knowledge of the specification and issued claims of the ‘056 Patent" upon receiving cease and desist letters in April 2024 (Compl. ¶9). These allegations of pre-suit knowledge form a basis upon which Plaintiff may later argue for enhanced damages due to willful infringement for any infringing activity occurring after this notice date.

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

  1. A core issue will be one of claim construction: How will the court interpret the phrase "have a height of at least a distance from an upper surface of the table to 175 cm (-10%) from a floor"? The resolution of this arguably ambiguous dimensional limitation in Claim 1 could be dispositive.

  2. A second key issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Assuming a construction is reached, what evidence will demonstrate that the accused "EGGNEST COMPLETE" system possesses the claimed structure, particularly the two shields that can be "rotated relative to one another" in the manner required by the patent?

  3. Finally, the case presents a question of culpability and damages: Given the complaint’s allegations of pre-suit notice via cease and desist letters, a central question for the damages phase will be whether any continued infringement by the Defendant after April 2024 was willful, potentially exposing the Defendant to enhanced damages.