DCT

2:25-cv-13070

Breakthrough Innovations LLC v. Diamedical USA Equipment LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-13070, E.D. Mich., 09/29/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Michigan because Defendant has a principal place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement, such as selling and offering to sell the accused product, within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicle extrication training simulator infringes a patent related to devices for simulating transportation emergencies.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns physical training simulators used to teach first responders, such as EMS personnel and firefighters, how to safely extricate individuals trapped in vehicles after an accident.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior business relationship where Defendant was the exclusive distributor for Plaintiff's patented product. Plaintiff alleges that during this relationship, Defendant used confidential information to develop a competing product and launched it immediately after terminating the distribution agreement. Plaintiff also alleges it provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-03-15 ’767 Patent Priority Date
2018-03-13 ’767 Patent Issue Date
2020-07-02 Plaintiff and Defendant enter Original Distribution Agreement
2023-04-14 Plaintiff and Defendant enter Amended and Restated Distribution Agreement
2023-05-01 Defendant acquired by Pocket Nurse Enterprises, LLC (approx. date)
2025-05-05 Defendant provides notice of intent to terminate Distribution Agreement
2025-05-13 Plaintiff’s counsel responds, reminding Defendant of its patent rights, including the ’767 Patent
2025-07-31 Termination of Distribution Agreement becomes effective
2025-08-04 Defendant allegedly introduces the Accused System (approx. date)
2025-09-29 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,916,767 - "Device and Method for Simulating a Transportation Emergency," issued March 13, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the shortcomings of conventional first responder training methods. Simulating rescues using a chair in a classroom is unrealistic as it lacks physical obstacles, while using an actual vehicle from a junkyard is impractical for a classroom setting, difficult to reconfigure, and obscures the instructor's view of the trainee (’767 Patent, col. 1:36-53, col. 2:2-7).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable, modular training device with a skeletal framework that simulates the interior of a transportation vehicle (’767 Patent, Abstract). This open-frame design mimics the physical constraints of a real vehicle cabin—including seats, steering column, and frame components—while allowing instructors and other trainees to observe the rescue exercise from multiple angles (’767 Patent, col. 2:27-41; Fig. 1). The device can also be reconfigured or tilted to simulate various accident scenarios, such as a vehicle rolled on its side (’767 Patent, col. 3:28-32).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enabled standardized, repeatable training that could be conducted in a classroom environment, addressing a need for more realistic and observable simulation than previously available options (Compl. ¶¶14-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’767 Patent without specifying which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶50). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented device.
  • Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
    • A device for simulating a transportation emergency comprising a first framework section and a second framework section.
    • The two framework sections are removably attachable to one another.
    • In an assembled state, the sections collectively define a passenger compartment.
    • Each framework section comprises a base, vertical front and back supports, and horizontal front and back supports.
    • Vertical supports from the first section and second section are in parallel planes and form first and second parts of a "center framework."
    • The first and second parts of the center framework are "matable against" each other, with the vertical supports of the two sections being removably attached.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused product is the "SimRescue™ Reimagined – The Auto Extrication Trainer" (the "Accused System") (Compl. ¶33).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused System is a device for "simulating a transportation emergency" (Compl. ¶33). It is marketed as an extrication training system and is alleged to be a competing product to Plaintiff's own "SETS/SimRescue" system (Compl. ¶5). The complaint alleges that Defendant, Plaintiff's former exclusive distributor, developed and began selling the Accused System immediately after terminating its distribution agreement with Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶5, 42). The complaint does not provide a detailed technical description of the Accused System's structure or operation.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or map specific features of the Accused System to the limitations of the asserted patent claims. It makes a general allegation that Defendant’s acts of making, using, and selling the Accused System infringe one or more claims of the ’767 Patent (Compl. ¶50). Without more detailed allegations regarding the structure of the Accused System, a direct comparison to the claim elements is not possible based on the complaint alone.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Structural Questions: The central technical question will be whether the Accused System is constructed from "a first framework section and a second framework section" that are "removably attachable" to form a "center framework" as required by claim 1. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on the physical construction of the Accused System, which is not detailed in the complaint.
    • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether the Accused System, even if modular, meets the specific structural arrangement of a "center framework" where two halves are "matable against" each other, as recited in the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "removably attachable"

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the modularity of the claimed invention. The definition will determine what kind of connection between the two framework sections falls within the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the Accused System's assembly method, if any, qualifies as "removably attachable."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a method of attachment, which could support an interpretation covering any non-permanent connection.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific examples such as "a system of nuts and bolts," "latches, ties, clasps, and the like," which might be used to argue for a more limited construction requiring relatively simple, field-detachable mechanisms (’767 Patent, col. 8:10-16).

  • The Term: "center framework"

    • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires that vertical supports from each of the two sections form parts of a "center framework." The existence and structure of such a feature in the Accused System will be a critical infringement question.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this term refers generally to any central structural spine or plane created when the two main sections are joined.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes an embodiment where two sections are "jointed at the center 72 of the framework" (’767 Patent, col. 8:51-52; Fig. 3), which could support an argument that the term requires a distinct, midline division of the overall device structure.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges contributory and induced infringement but does not plead specific underlying facts, such as identifying instructions or user manuals that would encourage direct infringement by customers (Compl. ¶¶35, 50).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been willful (Compl. ¶53). This allegation is supported by the assertion that Plaintiff’s counsel, in a letter dated May 13, 2025, reminded Defendant that the "SETS/SimRescue system ‘is protected by U.S. patent numbers... 9,916,767...’," thereby allegedly establishing pre-suit knowledge of the patent (Compl. ¶¶38, 53).

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: does discovery show that the accused "SimRescue Reimagined" trainer embodies the specific modular architecture recited in the asserted claims, particularly the use of two removably attachable sections that mate to form a "center framework," or is it built on a fundamentally different design?
  • A second key question will relate to willfulness and damages: how will the alleged history between the parties as distributor and supplier, including the specific pre-suit letter identifying the ’767 Patent, affect the determination of willful infringement and potentially enhanced damages?