DCT
1:25-cv-00340
Hipr Innovation Inc v. Kalogon Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: HiPR Innovation, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Kalogon, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ashby & Geddes; Lahti Helfgott LLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00340, D. Del., 03/19/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware on the basis that Defendant Kalogon, Inc. is a Delaware corporation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smart wheelchair cushion products infringe a patent related to dynamic, sensor-based pressure relief systems.
- Technical Context: The technology involves smart medical cushions that use sensors and an array of inflatable air bladders to automatically redistribute pressure for wheelchair users, a key market for preventing chronic pressure ulcers.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the patent-in-suit and its alleged infringement on March 18, 2024, approximately one year prior to filing the lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-04-29 | ’687 Patent Priority Date |
| 2019-08 | HiPR Innovation, Inc. Founded |
| 2021-12-07 | ’687 Patent Issued |
| 2024-03-18 | Plaintiff sends pre-suit notice letter to Defendant |
| 2025-03-19 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,191,687 - "PORTABLE CUSHION AND METHOD OF USE"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,191,687, "PORTABLE CUSHION AND METHOD OF USE," issued December 7, 2021.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the significant health problem of pressure ulcers (also known as bedsores) for individuals with limited mobility, such as wheelchair users. It posits that prior art solutions were inadequate, failing to provide a sufficiently dynamic and responsive system to relieve constant pressure on bony prominences. (’687 Patent, col. 1:20-1:44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a smart, compartmentalized inflatable cushion system. It employs a network of sensors to detect high-pressure areas and a microcontroller to automatically inflate and deflate specific air bladders ("pods") to constantly rotate and relieve pressure. The system is designed to connect to a communication device, such as a smartphone, to provide user feedback. (’687 Patent, col. 1:45-1:59; Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides for a closed-loop feedback system that automates the dynamic management of pressure points, representing a potential advancement over static cushions or systems with pre-programmed, non-responsive inflation cycles. (’687 Patent, col. 1:45-1:51).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A multi-component cushion including a cover, top layer, base, a plurality of inflatable bladder pods, and a plurality of pressure sensors.
- A control system including a microcontroller, a communication device, a portable power source, a gas pump, and a blow-off valve.
- A pneumatic system of a primary tube, a plurality of secondary tubes, and a plurality of two-way valves to manage airflow.
- A specific architecture where, among other connections, the bladder pods are on the base and below the top layer, and the pods, secondary tubes, and pressure sensors are in "individual fluid communication."
- A functional requirement for the microcontroller to receive signals from the sensors and send signals to the valves and pump.
- The complaint expressly reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶32).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Kalogon Orbiter Cushion and the Kalogon Orbiter Med Cushion (collectively, "Kalogon Cushions"). (Compl. ¶23).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Kalogon Cushions are active, smart cushions that use a construction with five air cells to "periodically adjust interface pressure on the user's seated surface." (Compl. ¶26). The system is alleged to monitor pressure changes within the air cells and adapt in real-time to redistribute pressure, prevent injuries, and improve comfort. (Compl. ¶24). The technology is housed in a controller that contains the pressure control system, battery, and electromechanical hardware for inflation and deflation. (Compl. ¶27).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’687 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An inflatable cushion with non-uniform pressure comprising; a cover; a top layer; a base... a plurality of bladder pods | The Orbiter is alleged to be an inflatable cushion with these components, including a four-way stretch fabric cover, a visco-elastic foam top layer, a stiff base, and five air cells that function as bladder pods. | ¶¶27, 31 | col. 5:46-49 |
| a communication device; a microcontroller; a portable power source; a gas pump | The Orbiter's controller allegedly houses a communication device, a microcontroller, a battery (portable power source), and electromechanical hardware that functions as a gas pump. | ¶27 | col. 6:13-16 |
| said plurality of bladder pods are on said base | The complaint provides a visual of the Orbiter's five air cells, alleged to be bladder pods, situated on the product's base. This photograph shows five blue, square-shaped air cells arranged on a black base. (Compl. p. 8). | ¶31 | col. 6:18 |
| said plurality of bladder pods are below said top layer | The accused product is described as having a "stack-up of visco-elastic, slow recovery foam" positioned above the air cells. | ¶31 | col. 11:35-39 |
| said individual secondary tubes are in fluid communication with said individual pressure sensors | The complaint alleges, upon information and belief, that the Orbiter's secondary tubes are in fluid communication with its pressure sensors, stating this is required for the system to individually monitor and adjust pressure in each air cell. | ¶31 | col. 9:51-57 |
| said microcontroller can receive and send signals to said... individual pressure sensors | The Orbiter's microcontroller allegedly receives signals from pressure sensors monitoring each air cell and sends signals to control the system's valves and pump to inflate or deflate cells as needed. | ¶31 | col. 6:25-30 |
| said plurality of bladder pods are covered by said cover attaching to said base | The complaint includes a photograph of the fully assembled Orbiter cushion, alleging its five air cells are covered by a cover that wraps around and attaches to the base. This photograph shows the assembled cushion with a black and blue fabric cover. (Compl. p. 11). | ¶31 | col. 6:30-32 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint's allegations regarding the specific fluid pathways—for instance, that "individual secondary tubes are in fluid communication with said individual pressure sensors"—are made "upon information and belief" and justified by functional necessity rather than direct observation. (Compl. ¶31). This raises the question of whether the accused product's architecture precisely matches the patent's claimed configuration or if it achieves a similar result through a different, un-claimed design, such as a centralized sensor manifold.
- Technical Questions: A key technical question will be to determine the actual physical construction of the Kalogon Cushions' pneumatic system. The infringement claim depends on the existence of a "primary tube," "a plurality of secondary tubes," and "a plurality of two-way valves" arranged in the specific manner recited by the claim. The defense may argue that the accused product employs a more integrated or functionally different system that does not meet these structural limitations literally.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "in individual fluid communication with"
- Context and Importance: This phrase appears multiple times in claim 1 to define the required one-to-one pneumatic relationship between bladder pods, secondary tubes, and pressure sensors. The strength of the infringement case may depend heavily on whether the accused product's architecture embodies this specific distributed arrangement. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused device uses a central manifold for sensing or air distribution, it may not meet this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition. A party might argue the term simply requires that pressure changes in a pod can be sensed by its corresponding sensor and that air can flow through its corresponding tube, without dictating a specific physical separation for the entire pathway.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of the word "individual" strongly suggests a one-to-one mapping. The patent's figures, such as Figure 8, depict distinct, physically separate secondary tubes (3074) and wires (3057) for each pod/sensor combination, which could support a narrower construction requiring separate physical pathways. (’687 Patent, Fig. 8; col. 9:51-57).
The Term: "top layer"
- Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires the "plurality of bladder pods are below said top layer." The complaint alleges the accused product's "stack up of visco-elastic, slow recovery foam" is this "top layer." (’687 Patent, cl. 1; Compl. ¶¶27, 31). The term's construction is important to determine if the accused foam layer qualifies, especially in relation to the separate "cover" element.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to a "top layer of padding" without significant limitation, suggesting any cushioning material above the pods could qualify. (’687 Patent, col. 9:1-5).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures and description distinguish between the "cover" (3010) and the "top layer" (3020) as separate components. (’687 Patent, Fig. 8). A party could argue that for a feature to be the "top layer," it must be a distinct component from the outer fabric "cover," a distinction that may be contested in the accused product's construction.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement is willful. This allegation is based on Plaintiff having sent a letter on March 18, 2024, which allegedly provided Defendant with actual notice of the ’687 Patent and its infringement, and Defendant's subsequent continuation of its allegedly infringing activities. (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 33-34).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of architectural correspondence: does the internal pneumatic and electronic architecture of the Kalogon cushion map onto the specific, distributed network of "individual" tubes and sensors required by Claim 1? The complaint's reliance on "information and belief" for these critical connections suggests this will be a primary focus of discovery and expert testimony.
- The outcome may also depend on claim construction: the court’s interpretation of the phrase "in individual fluid communication with" will be pivotal. Whether this term is construed to require the physically separate pathways depicted in the patent’s figures, or if it can read on more integrated designs like a central manifold, could be determinative of infringement.