DCT
1:25-cv-03303
Molnlycke Health Care Ab v. Medway Group Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Mölnlycke Health Care AB (Sweden)
- Defendant: Medway Group, Inc. (Georgia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC; K&L Gates LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-03303, N.D. Ga., 06/12/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Georgia because Defendant is a Georgia corporation that has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of bordered silicone foam dressings infringes two U.S. design patents covering the ornamental appearance of wound dressings.
- Technical Context: The case involves shaped, absorbent foam dressings used in advanced wound care for managing moderate to heavy wound exudate.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint details extensive pre-suit correspondence. Plaintiff allegedly notified Defendant of infringement of the first patent in September 2024, to which Defendant allegedly responded with an intent to cease sales by the end of 2024. Plaintiff alleges it sent a second notice regarding another patent in November 2024 and a follow-up letter in February 2025 regarding continued infringement, which forms the basis for its willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-10-12 | '564 Patent - Earliest Priority Date |
| 2013-04-16 | '453 Patent - Earliest Priority Date |
| 2015-08-25 | '453 Patent - Issue Date |
| 2015-11-17 | '564 Patent - Issue Date |
| 2024-09-18 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant regarding '453 Patent |
| 2024-10-04 | Defendant responds to Plaintiff, allegedly agreeing to cease sales |
| 2024-11-26 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant regarding '564 Patent |
| 2025-02-10 | Plaintiff notes accused product still listed for sale on Amazon.com |
| 2025-02-21 | Plaintiff sends subsequent letter regarding continued infringement |
| 2025-06-12 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D737,453 - "Dressing" (Issued Aug. 25, 2015)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve a technical problem but rather protect a product's ornamental appearance. This patent protects a new, original, and ornamental design for a wound dressing (Compl. ¶28; '453 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a dressing. The claimed design consists of a generally ovular shape with four symmetric, petal-like lobes extending from the periphery. The top surface features a repeating pattern of wavy or crescent-shaped lines, and the overall impression is of a distinct, four-leaf clover-like shape ('453 Patent, Figs. 1, 3, 10). The claim is for the visual appearance as depicted in the drawings, not for any functional aspect of the dressing ('453 Patent, Claim).
- Technical Importance: The distinctive design provides a unique visual identity for a medical product in the wound care market, which Plaintiff associates with its "Mepilex" product line (Compl. ¶12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for dressing, as shown and described" ('453 Patent, col. 1:50-51).
- This claim covers the overall visual appearance of the article as depicted in the patent's fourteen figures.
U.S. Design Patent No. D743,564 - "Dressing" (Issued Nov. 17, 2015)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Like the '453 patent, the '564 patent protects a new, original, and ornamental design for a wound dressing (Compl. ¶43; '564 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims the ornamental design for a dressing shaped to fit an anatomical contour, such as a heel or elbow. The design features a central, multi-lobed body with an hourglass-like profile, flanked by two wide, wing-like adhesive extensions ('564 Patent, Figs. 1, 3). The claim protects the specific three-dimensional shape and configuration shown in the patent's figures ('564 Patent, Claim).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a unique aesthetic for a dressing intended for a specific anatomical application, which the complaint links to an accused "Heel Product" (Compl. ¶18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for dressing, as shown and described" ('564 Patent, col. 1:51-52).
- The claim's scope is defined by the visual appearance of the dressing depicted in the patent's eight figures.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Defendant’s "MedVance® Bordered Silicone Foam Dressing" product line, including a general-purpose dressing and a version identified as a "Heel Product" (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 10, 18).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are described as multi-layer foam dressings for the management of acute and chronic wounds (Compl. ¶9, screenshot). The complaint alleges these products are made, used, imported, offered for sale, and sold by Defendant through its own websites and various third-party online vendors, including Amazon.com (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 11, 31). A screenshot from a search engine result provided in the complaint shows a suggested search for "Generic for Mepilex Dressing" in connection with the accused product, which may suggest a perceived similarity in the marketplace between Defendant's product and Plaintiff's "Mepilex" brand dressings (Compl. ¶12).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement test for a design patent is whether an "ordinary observer," giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The analysis relies on a comparison of the overall ornamental appearance.
The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison for each asserted patent. This image, located at paragraph 33, shows a drawing from the '453 patent next to a photograph of the accused MedVance™ dressing (Compl. ¶33).
'453 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Single Claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a dressing, as shown and described. | The overall visual appearance of the MedWay MedVance™ Bordered Silicone Foam Dressing, which allegedly features a substantially similar four-lobed, clover-like shape and proportions as the patented design. | ¶32, ¶33 | col. 1:50-51 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary question is whether the overall visual impression of the accused product is substantially the same as the claimed design.
- Technical Questions: A potential point of dispute may arise from the surface texture. The patent drawings for the '453 Patent show a distinct pattern of wavy lines on the top surface ('453 Patent, Fig. 3), whereas the photograph of the accused product shows what appears to be a perforated or textured surface (Compl. ¶33). The court will need to determine if this difference is significant enough to alter the overall visual impression for an ordinary observer.
The complaint provides another side-by-side visual comparison for the second asserted patent. This image, located at paragraph 48, shows a drawing from the '564 patent next to a photograph of the accused MedVance™ "Heel Product" (Compl. ¶48).
'564 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Single Claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a dressing, as shown and described. | The overall visual appearance of the MedWay MedVance™ Bordered Silicone Foam Dressing "Heel Product," which allegedly embodies a substantially similar contoured, hourglass-shaped body with flanking wings. | ¶47, ¶48 | col. 1:51-52 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: As with the '453 patent, the core issue is the similarity of the overall visual appearance to an ordinary observer.
- Technical Questions: The court will compare the specific shapes, curvatures, and proportions of the accused "Heel Product" to the drawings in the '564 Patent. The analysis will focus on whether any minor differences in the product's contours are sufficient to distinguish it from the patented design in the mind of a typical purchaser.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Analysis of claim term construction is not applicable, as design patents claim an ornamental design as a whole, depicted in drawings, rather than using textual limitations that require interpretation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations of induced or contributory infringement. The claims for relief focus on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 45).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been and continues to be willful (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 20). This allegation is based on Defendant's alleged continued infringement after receiving actual notice. The complaint cites a September 18, 2024 notice letter for the '453 patent and a November 26, 2024 notice letter for the '564 patent (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 55). The willfulness claim is further supported by the allegation that Defendant continued selling the products even after responding on October 4, 2024, that it would cease sales by the end of that year (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 17, 19).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: For each patent, is the overall ornamental appearance of the corresponding accused MedVance dressing "substantially the same" as the patented design in the eyes of an ordinary observer, such that a purchaser would be deceived? The resolution will depend on a holistic comparison of the designs rather than an analysis of discrete features.
- A key factual question will be one of intent: Do the facts alleged in the complaint—specifically, Defendant's continued sales after receiving multiple notices and after allegedly promising to cease its activities—rise to the level of egregious conduct required for a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284?
- Should infringement be found, a central question for damages will be the calculation of profits: Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289, which provides for the award of an infringer’s total profit for design patent infringement, how will Defendant’s "total profit" on the "article of manufacture" be determined, and what evidence will be required to establish that amount?