DCT
2:23-cv-00565
Vive Health LLC v. Stander Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Vive Health, LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: Stander, Inc. (Utah)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Aspiro Legal LLC
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00565, M.D. Fla., 07/28/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant sent an infringement notice to Amazon with the knowledge it would be directed to Plaintiff, a Florida corporation, and that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its compact bed rail product does not infringe Defendant's patent and/or that the patent is invalid, following Defendant's use of Amazon's patent enforcement program to have Plaintiff's product removed from the platform.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of mobility assistance devices, specifically collapsible bed rails designed for compact storage and shipping, a key consideration for e-commerce sales channels.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Defendant submitted a notice of infringement to Amazon via its Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) program, which resulted in the removal of Plaintiff's product listings. This action for declaratory judgment followed, which Plaintiff alleges is necessary for judicial intervention and reinstatement of its product on Amazon.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-05-12 | U.S. Patent No. 8,973,192 Priority Date |
| 2010-10-04 | Date of prior art YouTube video cited by Plaintiff |
| 2015-03-10 | U.S. Patent No. 8,973,192 Issue Date |
| 2023-04-25 | Stander files infringement request with Amazon |
| 2023-05-22 | Plaintiff's counsel contacts Defendant's counsel |
| 2023-07-28 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,973,192 - "COLLAPSIBLE MOBILITY ASSISTANCE DEVICE," issued March 10, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that mobility assistance devices can be packaged in "substantially bulky containers," which may "negatively impact the profit per retail space" for manufacturers and retailers (’192 Patent, col. 1:61-67).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a mobility assistance device, such as a bed rail, that can be disassembled into multiple, individual components. These components are designed to be "planar," allowing them to be arranged flat in a compact storage configuration, thereby reducing package size for shipping and storage (’192 Patent, col. 4:20-33; FIG. 3). The patent describes a base section and an upright handle section that each separate into multiple pieces, which can then be laid out in a "substantially rectangular, coplanar orientation" (’192 Patent, col. 4:24-27).
- Technical Importance: The design directly addresses the logistical challenges of selling bulky durable medical equipment by enabling more efficient and cost-effective packaging and storage, a key consideration for mass retail and e-commerce (’192 Patent, col. 2:19-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as the claim asserted by the Defendant (Compl. ¶5, ¶32).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A base section configured to be placed under a cushion.
- An upright section with a handle, a first upright support portion, and a second upright support portion.
- The base section and handle portion are removably coupled to the upright support portions.
- The base section, handle portion, and upright support portions are each "substantially planar" when in a storage configuration.
- The base section is decoupleable into a first and second base portion.
- The disassembled components "are configured to be oriented in a substantially rectangular, coplanar orientation when the device is in a storage configuration."
- The complaint reserves the right to seek a declaratory judgment of non-infringement for "any other claim of the ’192 Patent" (Compl. ¶33).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are identified as "Vive's compact bed rail," listed on Amazon with the Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) B07NWWWKNJ and B094WN9ZFP (Compl. ¶1, ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the product as a compact bed rail and one of Plaintiff's "best selling products" on the Amazon platform (Compl. ¶20). The central technical allegation relevant to non-infringement is that the components of the Vive bed rail are not configured to be oriented in the specific manner required by the patent's asserted claim (Compl. ¶33). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
As this is a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the analysis is based on Plaintiff's allegations of how its product does not meet the claim limitations.
’192 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ...the first and second base portions, the first and second upright support portions, and the handle portion are configured to be oriented in a substantially rectangular, coplanar orientation when the device is in a storage configuration. | The complaint alleges that "the first and second base portions, the first and second upright support portions, and the handle portion" of the Vive Compact Bed Rail are not configured to be oriented in the claimed "substantially rectangular, coplanar orientation" when the device is in its storage configuration. | ¶33 | col. 6:49-55 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary dispute articulated in the complaint centers on the meaning of "configured to be oriented in a substantially rectangular, coplanar orientation." A central question will be whether this phrase requires the specific nested-rectangle arrangement shown in the patent's Figure 3, or if it can be interpreted more broadly to cover any arrangement where the disassembled parts can lie flat together in a generally rectangular shape.
- Technical Questions: The complaint asserts a factual mismatch but does not provide evidence (such as a diagram of its product in a storage state) to demonstrate it. A key technical question for the court will be to compare the actual storage configuration of the Vive compact bed rail with the configuration described and claimed in the ’192 Patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "configured to be oriented in a substantially rectangular, coplanar orientation"
- Context and Importance: This term appears to be the crux of the non-infringement argument, as it is the only limitation Plaintiff explicitly identifies as not being met by its product (Compl. ¶33). The definition of this phrase will therefore be critical to the non-infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because the Plaintiff's entire pleaded theory of non-infringement rests upon it.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party seeking a broader definition might argue that the term "substantially" allows for considerable deviation from a perfect rectangle and that "configured to be oriented" simply means the components can be, but do not have to be, arranged in such a way. This view may be supported by the patent's general goal of creating a "minimally sized package" without being limited to a single specific layout (’192 Patent, col. 2:40-44).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party seeking a narrower definition will likely point to Figure 3 and the associated text as defining the scope of the claim. The specification states that in the depicted embodiment, "the two upright support portions 20a, 20b are disposed such that they form an outermost rectangle, while the two base portions 22a, 22b are disposed such that they form a second rectangle within the outermost rectangle" (’192 Patent, col. 4:27-33). This language could support an argument that the claim requires this specific nested arrangement, not just any compact layout.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint includes counts for invalidity of the ’192 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (anticipation) and 103 (obviousness), citing U.S. Patent Nos. 6,138,301, 6,401,280, 3,739,793, and a YouTube video from 2010 as prior art (Compl. ¶25, ¶26). It also brings state law claims for unfair competition and tortious interference based on Defendant's actions with Amazon (Compl. ¶38-44).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the limitation "configured to be oriented in a substantially rectangular, coplanar orientation" be read broadly to cover various compact layouts, or is its meaning restricted by the specific nested-rectangle embodiment shown in the patent's Figure 3 and its accompanying description?
- A second central question will be one of validity in view of the prior art: Do the cited prior art references, particularly the 2010 YouTube video alleged to show the "same design," disclose every element of the asserted claims, including the specific configuration of disassembled planar components for compact storage?