DCT

1:17-cv-21509

Raptor LLC v. Odebrecht Construction Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-21509, S.D. Fla., 07/06/2017
  • Venue Allegations: The complaint does not contain explicit venue allegations, but the accused activities are described as occurring at an FDOT highway project in Miami-Dade County, which lies within the Southern District of Florida.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' industrial equipment and processes for slip-forming concrete highway structures infringe patents, including one patent expressly directed to methods and apparatus for endovascularly replacing a heart valve.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit involves two disparate technology areas: the accused conduct relates to industrial concrete construction for highway projects, while the provided patent-in-suit describes a medical device system for performing minimally invasive heart valve replacement surgery.
  • Key Procedural History: The provided document is a notice of filing a First Amended Complaint, filed pursuant to a court order after the initial complaint was dismissed. A significant procedural issue is that the notice, filed in July 2017, alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,956,075, which did not issue until May 2018.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-12-23 ’075 Patent Priority Date
2013-01-01 Plaintiff alleges development of its equipment design and protocol
2017-07-06 First Amended Complaint Filing Date
2018-05-01 ’075 Patent Issue Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,956,075 - "Methods and Apparatus for Endovascularly Replacing a Heart Valve" (Issued May 1, 2018)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the significant risks and long recovery times associated with traditional open-heart surgery for valve replacement. It also identifies drawbacks of prior art percutaneous (endovascular) systems, such as the difficulty in accurately placing self-expanding stents, which can "jump" upon release, and their potential lack of sufficient radial force to anchor the valve securely. (U.S. Patent No. 9,956,075, col. 1:21-3:4).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system for replacing a heart valve through minimally invasive endovascular means. It comprises a replacement valve, an expandable anchor (e.g., a wire braid), and a deployment tool. The tool uses "anchor actuation elements" to apply mechanical, non-hydraulic forces (e.g., pushing or pulling) to reshape and position the anchor with precision. This design allows a surgeon to deploy, adjust, and potentially retrieve the device before its final, irreversible release, thereby addressing the accuracy and control problems of earlier systems. (Abstract; ’075 Patent, col. 2:50-67).
  • Technical Importance: This technology aims to provide greater control, precision, and reversibility in transcatheter heart valve replacement procedures, potentially improving patient outcomes compared to both open-heart surgery and first-generation endovascular devices. (’075 Patent, col. 2:5-13).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint notice asserts "Process" claims (1-8), "system" claims (8-14), and "Tunnel Mold" claims (15-22) of the ’075 Patent (Compl. pp. 3-4). The ’075 Patent, however, contains only 20 claims, all of which are system claims, and it includes no claims directed to a "Process" or a "Tunnel Mold." Independent claims 1 and 11 are the patent's two independent claims.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A system, comprising:
    • an outer delivery sheath;
    • a replacement heart valve comprising an expandable anchor member configured to be implantable within a patient; and
    • a deployment tool extending through the outer delivery sheath to the replacement heart valve, the deployment tool comprising an attachment mechanism configured to engage the expandable anchor member and a release actuator configured to releasably secure the expandable anchor member to the attachment mechanism;
    • wherein the release actuator is positioned generally parallel to the attachment mechanism and translation of the release actuator relative to the attachment mechanism permits the expandable anchor member to disengage from the attachment mechanism;
    • wherein the attachment mechanism encircles at least a portion of the expandable anchor member when the expandable anchor member is releasably secured to the attachment mechanism. (’075 Patent, col. 25:17-41).

The Unidentified "'068 patent"

  • Patent Identification: The complaint notice refers to a second patent-in-suit as the "'068 patent" but does not provide a full patent number, title, or issue date. (Compl. p. 3).
  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint notice alleges the ’068 patent contains "Process" claims (Claims 1-8) and "system" claims (Claims 9-16) related to slip-forming concrete structures. The notice states the invention involves five key elements: "rebars," a "tunnel mold," "mold tunnels," a "machine assembly" (mold + conveyor), and the resulting "product" (road pad, bridge coping, traffic rail). (Compl. p. 3).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-16 are allegedly asserted. (Compl. p. 3).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are Defendants' industrial equipment and processes used for slip-forming concrete structures on a highway project. (Compl. p. 3). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for further analysis of this patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the "industrial equipment" and associated processes used by Defendant Odebrecht Construction Inc. on an FDOT highway project in Miami-Dade County. (Compl. p. 2).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the equipment is used for "slip forming concrete structures with exposed rebars." (Compl. pp. 2-3). Plaintiff alleges that because the equipment is in the Defendant's "exclusive custody and control" and its specifications are not public, its infringing operation must be "deduced by the 'product'" (the finished concrete structure) and the project's environment, specifically the "FDOT Specification for Highway Construction." (Compl. p. 2). The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff's patented process and equipment is the "FDOT standard." (Compl. p. 3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint notice states that claim charts were annexed to the First Amended Complaint but does not provide them. (Compl. p. 2). The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

The complaint's infringement theory appears to be based on reverse-engineering the function of the accused equipment from the final product. It alleges that because the concrete structures fabricated by the Defendants conform to FDOT specifications, there is a "presumption... that the Defendants equipment and process is either identical or equivalent to the Raptor process and equipment (which is patented)." (Compl. p. 3). This theory is applied to both the unidentified ’068 patent and the ’075 Patent.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Jurisdictional Question: A threshold issue is that the complaint, filed July 6, 2017, alleges infringement of the ’075 Patent, which did not issue until May 1, 2018. This raises the question of whether a claim for patent infringement can be maintained for a patent that did not exist at the time the suit was filed.
    • Fundamental Technology Mismatch: The central dispute regarding the ’075 Patent will likely concern the profound mismatch between the claimed subject matter and the accused instrumentality. The analysis will raise the question of whether claims directed to a "replacement heart valve" system for use in a "patient" can be construed to read on industrial equipment for slip-forming concrete on a highway.
    • Evidentiary Question: The complaint's theory of "deducing" the operation of internal equipment components from an external "product" and public specifications may face challenges, particularly where the infringement allegations are based on "inherent" or non-visible features. (Compl. pp. 2-4).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’075 Patent, the construction of several terms appears central to the dispute, given the technological divergence between the patent and the accused instrumentality.

  • The Term: "replacement heart valve"
    • Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble and body of every independent claim and defines the subject matter of the invention. The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether this term can be construed to cover something other than a medical prosthesis, such as a mold for forming a concrete structure.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide any language supporting a construction outside of the medical device context.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently and exclusively describes the invention as a medical device for replacing a biological heart valve (e.g., aortic valve) inside a living being. The detailed description includes sections on "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" for "Heart valve surgery" and figures depicting deployment within a human heart. (’075 Patent, col. 1:21-24; Figs. 3A-3E).
  • The Term: "patient"
    • Context and Importance: This term, found in Claim 1, defines the environment in which the claimed system is used. The infringement allegation would require this term to be construed to encompass a highway construction site.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide any language supporting a non-medical construction.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification uses the term "patient" throughout in its ordinary medical sense, referring to an individual undergoing a surgical or endovascular procedure. (’075 Patent, col. 1:26-28, col. 2:52-54).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint notice states that infringement is asserted "alternatively, under an equivalency standard" but does not plead specific facts to support claims for induced or contributory infringement. (Compl. p. 1).

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

The provided documents suggest the case will turn on several fundamental and potentially dispositive questions for the court.

  • A primary procedural question will be one of timing and jurisdiction: can a lawsuit alleging patent infringement proceed when the patent-in-suit (the ’075 Patent) had not yet been granted by the USPTO at the time the complaint was filed?
  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms such as "replacement heart valve" and "patient," which are rooted in the specific technical field of endovascular surgery, be construed to cover industrial concrete slip-forming equipment and a highway construction site? The apparent technological disconnect between the ’075 patent and the accused activities raises a central question about the plausibility of the infringement claim.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of inferential proof: can infringement of claims reciting specific structural and functional elements be established by "deducing" the operation of inaccessible industrial machinery solely from its output product and public project specifications, especially in the absence of direct evidence?