Breakthrough Innovations LLC v. Diamedical USA Equipment LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Breakthrough Innovations, LLC (Ohio)
  • Defendant: DiaMedical USA Equipment, LLC (Michigan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fisherbroyles LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-13070, E.D. Mich., 02/04/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Michigan because Defendant is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in the district, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement, including sales and offers for sale, within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicle extrication training simulators infringe two patents related to modular and realistic emergency simulation devices.
• Technical Context: The technology involves physical simulators used to train emergency medical services personnel and other first responders in techniques for safely extricating individuals from damaged vehicles.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the parties had a prior business relationship governed by an exclusive distribution agreement, during which Plaintiff shared confidential information. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used this information to develop a competing, infringing product after a change in Defendant’s management, leading to claims of patent infringement, breach of contract, and trade secret misappropriation.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,916,767 - "Device and Method For Simulating a Transportation Emergency"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes conventional emergency extrication training methods as inadequate Compl. ¶¶14-15 Methods like using a chair in a classroom are unrealistic, while using actual junked vehicles limits visibility for instructors and other trainees, is not easily repeatable, and cannot be done in a classroom setting ’767 Patent, col. 1:36-67 ’767 Patent, col. 2:1-12
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a modular training device built from a skeletal framework that simulates a vehicle's passenger compartment ’767 Patent, abstract It is constructed from two or more distinct framework sections that are removably attachable to one another, allowing the device to be disassembled for transport and storage, and then reassembled in a classroom or other training location ’767 Patent, col. 10:11-19 ’767 Patent, col. 10:45-54 The open, skeletal design is intended to give instructors and observers an unobstructed view of the trainee's actions ’767 Patent, col. 2:1-8
• Technical Importance: This modular approach sought to provide a portable, reusable, and realistic training platform that offered superior visibility compared to using actual vehicles, thereby standardizing and improving first responder training Compl. ¶15

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 Compl. ¶67
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A device comprising a first framework section and a second framework section that are removably attachable to one another.
  • In an assembled state, the sections collectively define a passenger compartment.
  • Each framework section comprises a base with vertical supports and interconnected horizontal supports.
  • The two framework sections have parts that are "matable against" each other to form a center framework when attached.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims but notes its allegations are "by way of example only" Compl. ¶67

U.S. Patent No. 11,043,137 - "Device and Method For Simulating a Transportation Emergency"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’767 Patent: the need for more realistic training tools for vehicle extrication that can simulate specific accident scenarios beyond just the vehicle's frame ’137 Patent, col. 1:36-54
• The Patented Solution: This patent builds on the foundational framework by adding specific, adjustable components to simulate common obstacles encountered in a severe collision. The key improvements are a "telescoping steering column" that can be positioned against a manikin's chest to simulate a frontal impact, and a "pivotally mounted" foot pedal assembly that can be moved into various "accident simulation positions" to trap a manikin's foot ’137 Patent, abstract ’137 Patent, col. 7:9-17 ’137 Patent, col. 8:38-43 These features are designed to create a more dynamic and challenging training environment ’137 Patent, col. 1:46-54
• Technical Importance: The invention allows trainers to replicate specific, dangerous mechanical intrusions within the passenger cabin, providing first responders with hands-on practice in overcoming these precise challenges Compl. ¶13

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 Compl. ¶77
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A device with a base and a framework defining a chamber to receive a manikin.
  • A seat within the chamber.
  • A "telescoping steering column" with multiple positions, where one position is pre-selected to place the steering wheel against the manikin's chest, simulating a collision.
  • A "foot pedal assembly pivotally mounted" to the framework, which can be moved into one or more "accident simulation positions."
  • A first accident simulation position involves pivoting the pedal assembly to place a pedal against the manikin's foot.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims but notes its allegations are "by way of example only" Compl. ¶77

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are identified as the "SimRescue™ Reimagined – The Auto Extrication Trainer," including versions "SRR v.1" and "SRR v.2" Compl. ¶¶37, 41

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused System is an "infringing and competing extrication training system" that Defendant began developing while serving as Plaintiff's exclusive distributor Compl. ¶5 The complaint alleges that Defendant launched the SRR v.1 product immediately after the distribution agreement terminated Compl. ¶55 The complaint asserts that the Accused System "practices each and every limitation" of the asserted claims but does not provide specific technical details, schematics, or photographs of the products' actual operation or construction Compl. ¶¶40, 44 No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused System (SRR v.1) infringes claim 1 of the ’767 Patent and that both the SRR v.1 and SRR v.2 versions infringe claim 1 of the ’137 Patent Compl. ¶¶67, 77 The complaint does not contain a claim chart exhibit; the following summary is based on the narrative allegations.

’767 Patent Infringement Allegations

’137 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations are conclusory, stating that the accused products meet "each and every limitation" without providing specific factual support, such as photographs or technical documents, to demonstrate how Compl. ¶¶40, 67, 77 A primary point of contention will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to substantiate these allegations for each claim element.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether the accused products, in fact, incorporate the specific modular, two-part matable framework required by the ’767 Patent, or if they use a different assembly method. Similarly, for the ’137 Patent, the dispute may focus on whether the accused product's steering and pedal components are merely adjustable or if they perform the specific "telescoping" and "pivoting" functions to simulate the distinct accident scenarios claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "removably attachable" ’767 Patent, claim 1

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention of a modular, transportable training device. The outcome of the infringement analysis for the ’767 Patent may depend on the scope of this term, specifically what degree of permanence or what type of connection it implies.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad and does not specify a particular method of attachment. The specification supports this by describing the goal of enabling "repeated assembly and disassembly" ’767 Patent, col. 4:53-55 and listing multiple potential connection methods, including "a system of nuts and bolts" and "a series of latches, ties, clasps, and the like" ’767 Patent, col. 10:16-24, suggesting any non-permanent connection could fall within the claim's scope.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term implies a connection that is easily and quickly made without specialized tools, although the patent's explicit mention of "nuts and bolts" could weaken this argument.

• The Term: "telescoping steering column" ’137 Patent, claim 1

• Context and Importance: This term defines a key feature for simulating a frontal impact collision. The infringement analysis for the ’137 Patent may hinge on whether the accused product's steering column has a structure that can be defined as "telescoping."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be argued to encompass any steering column assembly whose length can be adjusted to move the steering wheel closer to or further from the driver, regardless of the specific mechanism.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification describes a specific embodiment comprising "a sleeve... seated on the post" ’137 Patent, col. 7:18-21 ’137 Patent, Fig. 1 A defendant could argue that this disclosure limits the term "telescoping" to a structure involving concentric or sliding components, potentially excluding other types of length-adjustable mechanisms.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces and contributes to infringement by selling the Accused System to its customers Compl. ¶¶66, 76 The complaint alleges Defendant's actions induce customers to use the system in an infringing manner but does not detail specific acts of inducement, such as referencing instructions or user manuals.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of both patents Compl. ¶¶70, 80 The factual basis for this allegation appears to be the prior business relationship, under which Defendant acted as Plaintiff's exclusive distributor for the patented product Compl. ¶25 The complaint further alleges that Plaintiff's counsel explicitly reminded Defendant in writing that the commercial system was "protected by U.S. patent numbers... 9,916,767; and 11,043,137" before the alleged infringement began Compl. ¶49

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary support: Can Plaintiff produce evidence to bridge the gap between its conclusory allegations and the technical requirements of the claims? The case may turn on discovery revealing whether the accused "SimRescue Reimagined" products actually contain the specific two-part matable framework of the ’767 Patent and the telescoping steering column and pivoting pedal assembly of the ’137 Patent.
• A second key question will be one of intent: Given the parties' prior distribution relationship, Defendant's alleged access to confidential information, and the explicit pre-suit notification of the asserted patents, can Defendant establish that its alleged infringement was not willful? The answer will likely have significant implications for potential damages.
• Finally, the case may involve a critical question of definitional scope: Will the term "removably attachable" be construed broadly to cover any non-permanent connection mechanism, or will it be narrowed in a way that could provide a path to a non-infringement defense for the accused modular system?