DCT

1:18-cv-10296

Enovate Medical LLC v. Definitive Technology Group LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:18-cv-10296, D. Mass., 02/16/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Massachusetts because Defendant is a resident of the state, has committed alleged acts of infringement there, and maintains a regular and established place of business within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile workstation power systems, which feature "hot-swappable" batteries, infringe a patent related to power systems for mobile workstations with removable batteries.
  • Technical Context: Mobile workstation power systems are essential in clinical and industrial environments, enabling continuous, untethered operation of computer equipment for tasks like patient care and inventory management.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed on February 16, 2018. Subsequent to the filing, the asserted patent underwent two ex parte reexaminations. A first reexamination certificate, issued February 10, 2020, cancelled asserted claims 1, 2, 12, and 13, and amended claim 14. A second reexamination certificate, issued May 31, 2024, cancelled the amended claim 14. Consequently, all claims asserted in the original complaint have since been cancelled by the USPTO.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-02-25 ’607 Patent Priority Date
2010-08-24 ’607 Patent Issue Date
2018-02-06 Date of last access to Defendant's website cited in complaint
2018-02-16 Complaint Filing Date
2020-02-10 ’607 Patent Reexamination Certificate (C1) Issued, cancelling claims 1, 2, 12, 13
2024-05-31 ’607 Patent Reexamination Certificate (C2) Issued, cancelling claim 14

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,782,607 - Mobile Workstation Having Power System with Removable Battery Configured for Drop-in Engagement Therewith, issued August 24, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the problem of operational downtime for mobile workstations in settings like hospitals. These workstations either required connection to a wall outlet for power or used rechargeable batteries that were heavy, unwieldy, and required the workstation to be powered down for replacement, interrupting workflow. (’607 Patent, col. 2:1-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a power system that enables continuous operation through "hot-swapping" of the main battery. It achieves this by using an internal "back-up battery" that powers the workstation during the brief period when the main removable battery is being replaced. (’607 Patent, col. 4:31-42). The design also features a docking station holster with a specific shape that allows for easy, "gravity assisted drop-in engagement" of the lightweight removable battery, simplifying the physical process of the swap. (’607 Patent, col. 23:18-24).
  • Technical Importance: This technology aimed to eliminate the need to power down mobile workstations or tether them to wall outlets, thereby improving efficiency and continuity of care in critical environments. (’607 Patent, col. 2:3-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (apparatus) and 12 (method) (Compl. ¶27).
  • Independent Claim 1 elements include:
    • A mobile workstation frame with a base, wheels, and a mount for a computerized device.
    • A power system with a power bus and a battery docking station located between the base and the mount.
    • The docking station includes a holster defining a guide.
    • A "first battery."
    • A "removable battery assembly" with a second battery, configured to dock within the guide.
    • The power system has multiple "power sourcing modes," drawing power from either the first or second battery.
  • Independent Claim 12 elements include:
    • Powering a computerized device with a removable battery.
    • Decoupling the removable battery.
    • Docking a substitute battery.
    • Powering the device with the substitute battery.
    • Discharging a "third battery" (described in the specification as a backup) when neither the removable nor substitute battery is docked.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2 and 13-14. (Compl. ¶27).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Definitive Battery System" and mobile workstations, both new and retrofitted, that are equipped with this system. (Compl. ¶13, ¶14, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Definitive Battery System includes a power bus, a docking station with a holster, and removable batteries that can be "hot-swapped." (Compl. ¶15). The system is marketed for both medical and industrial mobile workstations. (Compl. ¶14). Marketing materials included in the complaint promote the system as "the most advanced mobile workstation battery ever developed" and show it can be used to "Retrofit your existing fleet." (Compl. ¶14, ¶16). A photograph from the Defendant's website shows the battery system, including multiple removable batteries and a docking station. (Compl. ¶16, p. 5). The complaint also includes photographs of the accused system in use in what appears to be a clinical setting with a nurse, as well as at a specific hospital, CHS Buffalo Mercy. (Compl. ¶19, p. 6; Compl. ¶25, p. 9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’607 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a frame which includes a base having... a plurality of wheels... and a mount for a computerized device Defendant sells and markets wheeled mobile workstations equipped with the Definitive Battery System. ¶18, ¶19 col. 4:9-14
a power system resident on the mobile workstation... including a power bus and a battery docking station The Definitive Battery System includes a power bus mountable to a workstation and a docking station. ¶15 col. 4:26-30
the battery docking station further including a holster having an open end and an opposite blind end, and defining a guide The docking station includes a holster on either side of the power bus for receiving the removable batteries. ¶15 col. 3:4-8
a first battery The complaint's allegation of "hot-swapped" functionality suggests the presence of a backup power source, which corresponds to the patent's "first battery." ¶15 col. 22:17
a removable battery assembly which includes a second battery, the removable battery assembly being configured to dock with the battery docking station via engagement in the guide The system includes removable batteries that can be inserted "into and out of the docking station." ¶15 col. 3:11-14
the power system... including a plurality of power sourcing modes which each include supplying electrical power to the power bus from one of the first battery and the second battery The ability to "hot-swap" batteries implies the system can switch between power sources to maintain continuous operation. ¶15 col. 22:31-37

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused system can be "hot-swapped," which implies the presence of a backup battery and power-switching capabilities as claimed. However, the complaint relies on marketing language rather than direct technical evidence of the system's internal architecture. A central question is what evidence demonstrates that the accused system contains a "first battery" (i.e., a backup battery) and performs the specific power-switching function between a main and backup source as required by the claims.
  • Scope Questions: The patent describes the "first battery" as a "back-up battery" that enables the hot-swap function. A question for the court would be whether the accused system, as sold, necessarily includes this element or if it is an optional component, which could affect direct infringement allegations against the manufacturer.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "a first battery" (Claim 1) / "a third battery" (Claim 12)

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s specification consistently describes this element as the "back-up battery" that provides power during a swap, which is the core of the solution to the problem of workstation downtime. Infringement of the asserted claims appears to require the presence and function of this backup power source.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself simply recites "a first battery" without the "back-up" modifier, which a party could argue gives it a plain and ordinary meaning not limited to a backup function.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explicitly identifies this element as "back-up battery 106" and explains its role is "providing electrical power... during swapping a removable battery." (’607 Patent, col. 4:31-42). The method claim (Claim 12) requires discharging this battery only when no primary battery is docked, which is consistent with a backup function.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement based on Defendant "encouraging and instructing" customers through its website, photographs, and "Expert Integration" consulting services, which allegedly advise customers on how to configure their workstations in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶23, ¶29, ¶31). It further alleges contributory infringement, stating the Definitive Battery System is a material part of the invention, is not a staple article of commerce, and is especially adapted for use in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶37-¶39).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s "full knowledge" of the patent and infringement. The complaint does not specify when or how Defendant allegedly obtained this knowledge. (Compl. ¶32, ¶43).

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

  • A Threshold Procedural Question: Given that all patent claims asserted in the original complaint were subsequently cancelled in ex parte reexaminations, the foundational question is what legal basis, if any, remains for the action as it was initially pleaded.
  • An Evidentiary Question of Internal Operation: Assuming the case were to proceed on surviving or amended claims, a key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence, beyond marketing claims of "hot-swap" capability, demonstrates that the accused products contain the internal architecture—specifically a backup battery and automated power-switching logic—that performs the functions required by the patent?
  • A Definitional Question of Claim Scope: The dispute may turn on claim construction: can the term "a first battery", as used in Claim 1, be interpreted to cover systems that lack the specific "back-up battery" function that is described as the central technical solution in the patent's specification?