DCT

1:25-cv-11433

Modalmed Inc v. John Doe

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-11433, N.D. Ill., 09/22/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper based on a prior settlement agreement in which the parties consented to venue and jurisdiction in the district, as well as Defendant’s operation of interactive e-commerce stores targeting consumers in Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s headwear (eye massager) products infringe two patents related to smart headwear that integrates electronic components and inflatable structures.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves embedding functional components, such as power sources, communication systems, and inflatable bladders, into wearable headgear to provide enhanced capabilities beyond traditional head coverings.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that this lawsuit arises from Defendant’s breach of a settlement agreement that resolved a prior patent infringement action between the parties. Plaintiffs allege that after settling the "Prior Litigation," Defendant failed to pay a contractually required "License Fee" and continued to sell the accused products, rendering them unlicensed and infringing. The prior settlement agreement allegedly included a covenant from the Defendant not to contest the validity of the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-01-20 Earliest Priority Date for '483 and '252 Patents
2020-06-16 '483 Patent Issued
2022-06-28 '252 Patent Issued
2022-07-01 Approximate launch date of Plaintiff Modalmed's Products
2024-11-15 Plaintiffs filed "Prior Litigation" against Defendant
2024-12-10 Defendant allegedly put on notice of infringement via service in Prior Litigation
2025-09-22 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,684,483 - "ITEM OF HEADWEAR"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the inconvenience of carrying bulky containers like wallets and purses, and notes that emerging technologies like virtual reality devices are often heavy and cumbersome due to the batteries required to power them ('483 Patent, col. 1:15-38).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes integrating an "information portal" into an item of headwear to serve as a centralized hub for power and communication ('483 Patent, Abstract). This portal includes a battery, processor, memory, and networking device, and is designed to communicate with and power other nearby wearable devices, such as smart glasses or earbuds, thereby making those peripheral devices lighter and more seamlessly integrated ('483 Patent, col. 7:6-18, Fig. 13A).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed solution seeks to improve the user experience of wearable technology by consolidating bulky power and processing components into a common article of clothing, potentially enabling a more distributed and less obtrusive ecosystem of personal devices ('483 Patent, col. 7:25-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 18 ('483 Patent, col. 14:20-36; Compl. ¶50).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 18 include:
    • An item of headwear comprising a headband and an inflatable bladder.
    • A battery.
    • An "information portal" which itself comprises an input device, a human interface device, and a "content providing system."
    • The content providing system must include non-transitory computer memory with a program, a processor, an output device, and a networking device.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 11,372,252 - "ITEM OF HEADWEAR"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Like its parent, the '252 Patent addresses the inconvenience of carrying multiple personal items and the bulkiness of wearable electronics ('252 Patent, col. 1:13-39).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent claims a more physically-focused invention: a wearable apparatus with a headband and a selectively inflatable bladder ('252 Patent, Abstract). The key claimed feature is the bladder's specific placement and function, such as resting "directly adjacent a forehead of the user" or inflating to support the user's head like a neck pillow ('252 Patent, col. 12:44-47, col. 12:51-53).
  • Technical Importance: This invention focuses on integrating multi-functional physical structures into headwear, combining comfort or therapeutic features (an inflatable bladder) with the basic form of a headband, distinct from the data-processing focus of the '483 Patent ('252 Patent, col. 4:18-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 14 ('252 Patent, col. 11:46-55, col. 12:49-53; Compl. ¶43).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A wearable apparatus with a headband consisting of a band and a bladder.
    • The bladder rests "directly adjacent a forehead of the user without anything in between."
    • The bladder is "selectively inflatable."
  • The essential elements of independent claim 14 include:
    • An item of headwear with a headband and a bladder secured to its inside surface.
    • In a use configuration, the bladder inflates to form a soft surface to support a user's head.
    • The bladder rests "directly adjacent the user's head."
  • The complaint also references claim 13, which depends from claim 10 (Compl. ¶26).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are identified as "headwear (eye massager) products" (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges Defendant sells these products through interactive e-commerce stores that target U.S. consumers (Compl. ¶2). It provides a screenshot of the Defendant's offer to sell the products as Exhibit 6 (Compl. ¶28). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused product's specific functionality, instead referencing claim charts in an unattached exhibit (Exhibit 5) (Compl. ¶26). This lack of detail in the pleading itself is notable.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint asserts that infringement is "shown in detail in the claim charts attached hereto as Exhibit 5" (Compl. ¶26). As this exhibit was not provided with the complaint, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the plaintiff's specific infringement theory is not possible. The analysis below summarizes the complaint's narrative allegations and identifies potential points of contention based on the claim language and the general description of the accused products.

'483 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • Narrative Summary: The complaint alleges that Defendant's "eye massager" products infringe at least claim 18 of the ’483 Patent (Compl. ¶50). This implies the products contain not only a headband, bladder, and battery, but also a complete "information portal" with a processor, memory, networking device, and input/output components as recited in the claim (Compl. ¶26).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the electronics in a consumer "eye massager" can be properly characterized as the "information portal" required by claim 18. Specifically, the requirement of a "networking device" suggests a capability to communicate with an external network or other devices, which may or may not be present in a standalone therapeutic device.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product performs the claimed functions of "receiving information from the input device" and "relaying the information to the human interface device"? The patent specification frames this functionality in the context of a hub for other wearables, raising the question of whether an eye massager's internal control system meets this limitation.

'252 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • Narrative Summary: The complaint alleges that the accused "eye massager" products infringe at least claims 1 and 14 of the ’252 Patent (Compl. ¶43). This allegation centers on the physical structure of the product, asserting it has a headband and a selectively inflatable bladder that rests against the user's head in the manner claimed (Compl. ¶26). A screenshot in the complaint allegedly depicts the Defendant's offer to sell such products (Compl. ¶28, Ex. 6).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis for claim 1 may turn on the precise meaning of "rests directly adjacent a forehead of the user without anything in between." The functionality of an "eye massager" suggests placement over the eyes, raising a question as to whether it also makes direct, uninterrupted contact with the forehead as the claim requires.
    • Technical Questions: For claim 14, the key question is whether the bladder in the accused eye massager inflates to "form a soft surface to support a user's head." This language suggests the function of a neck pillow, which may be technically distinct from the therapeutic pressure function of an eye massager.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "information portal" (from '483 Patent, claim 18)
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the '483 Patent. Its construction will likely determine whether the claim is limited to sophisticated, networked communication hubs or can be read more broadly to cover the electronics of simpler, standalone devices like the accused "eye massager."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim defines the portal by its components (input device, processor, memory, etc.), which, viewed in isolation, are present in many modern electronic devices ('483 Patent, col. 14:24-36).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the "information portal" as part of a system for communicating with and powering other devices, such as HID glasses or earbuds, positioning the headwear as a central hub ('483 Patent, col. 7:6-18, 8:12-18). This context may support a narrower construction that requires external communication and control capabilities.
  • The Term: "rests directly adjacent a forehead of the user without anything in between" (from '252 Patent, claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This language is highly specific and defines the physical interface between the device and the user. Whether the accused "eye massager" infringes claim 1 will depend entirely on whether its physical construction and intended manner of use meet this precise locational requirement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "adjacent" could be argued to mean "close to," potentially allowing for minor intervening elements or non-continuous contact, though the phrase "without anything in between" cuts against this.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of the full phrase strongly suggests direct, uninterrupted physical contact between the bladder's surface and the skin of the user's forehead. The patent provides no special definition, so this plain meaning is likely to be a focal point of dispute.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶42, 49). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for induced infringement, such as references to user manuals or advertising that instruct on an infringing use.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patents, which Plaintiffs claim was established "at least as early as December 10, 2024, when it was served with a summons and complaint in the Prior Litigation" (Compl. ¶27). The allegation is further supported by the claim that Defendant breached the subsequent settlement agreement and continued to sell the products without a license (Compl. ¶36-40).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical and functional scope: Can Plaintiffs demonstrate that the accused "eye massager" product, which appears to be a standalone therapeutic device, embodies the networked, multi-component "information portal" claimed in the '483 patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the accused product's function and the patent's claimed technology?
  • A key legal question will be one of claim construction and physical evidence: Does the accused product's inflatable component operate in a manner that "rests directly adjacent a forehead of the user without anything in between," as strictly required by claim 1 of the '252 patent? The resolution will likely depend on a meticulous comparison of the product's physical design to the claim's precise language.
  • The case's unique procedural history presents a significant strategic question: How will the Defendant's alleged breach of a prior settlement agreement—which reportedly included a covenant not to contest patent validity—impact its ability to defend against the infringement claims and its exposure to potential enhanced damages?