DCT
0:19-cv-02278
Apothecary Products LLC v. Guo
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Apothecary Products LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: John Doe a/k/a Minanan, a/k/a Yosemy an unknown entity
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
- Case Identification: 0:19-cv-02278, D. Minn., 08/16/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant’s alleged business activities within the District of Minnesota, including offering for sale and shipping accused products to Minnesota residents through the Amazon.com online marketplace.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s weekly pill organizer infringes a patent related to a multiple compartment container featuring a push-button lid release mechanism.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical pill organizers, a consumer healthcare product category where ease of access, particularly for users with limited dexterity, is a key functional feature.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s commercial products are marked with the patent-in-suit’s number, which may be relevant to questions of notice and willfulness. No other significant procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-11-02 | U.S. Patent No. 7,624,890 Priority Date |
| 2009-12-01 | U.S. Patent No. 7,624,890 Issue Date |
| 2020-04-28 | Certificate of Correction issued for U.S. Patent No. 7,624,890 |
| 2019-08-16 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,624,890 - "MULTIPLE COMPARTMENT CONTAINER"
(Compl. ¶31; ’890 Patent, cover).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for pill containers that are easy to use to encourage patient compliance, while also being secure. The summary section notes the invention seeks to provide a lid arrangement that "avoids inadvertently opening the lid, while at the same time allows easy opening when opening the lid is desired." (’890 Patent, col. 1:10-24, 1:30-33).
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a container with a hinged cap that locks onto a base. The key feature is a pivotal tab located on the base. When a user depresses the front of this tab, a rear portion of the tab acts as a lever, pivoting upward to contact and disengage the cap from its locked position, thereby opening the compartment. This mechanism is detailed in the specification and illustrated in figures such as FIG. 8, which provides a cross-sectional view of the tab (48) interacting with the cap. (’890 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:51-64).
- Technical Importance: This design offers a one-touch, push-button opening mechanism that improves accessibility, while the locking feature provides security against accidental spillage. (’890 Patent, col. 1:30-33).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 of the ’890 Patent. (Compl. ¶33).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A base with a front wall, a rear wall, and a cavity.
- A cap movable between open and closed positions, with one end secured to the base's back wall and the other end having a locking feature (an engagement arm or catch) that engages a corresponding feature on the base's front wall.
- A tab "pivotally connected" to the base, configured so that depressing a front portion of the tab causes a rear portion to contact the cap, disengaging it from the base and moving it to the open position.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is the "7 Day Pill Organizer with Pill Cutter Splitter," sold by "Minanan" under the "Yosemy" brand on Amazon.com (ASIN No. B07RSQGX89). (Compl. ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused product is a weekly pill organizer with seven compartments, each with a separate lid. (Compl. p. 6, Screenshot). The complaint alleges the product incorporates a "Push Button Design" that allows a user to open each compartment's lid by pressing a tab. An annotated image from the product's marketing materials states it is an "Esay to open push button, great idea for the ages and children." (Compl. p. 9). Plaintiff alleges that this product is a "knockoff" that directly competes with its own EZY DOSE line of pill containers on the Amazon marketplace. (Compl. ¶¶12, 22).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
The complaint provides a claim chart with annotated images to map the elements of claim 1 to the accused product. (Compl. p. 9). The complaint's infringement theory is summarized below.
’890 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a base having a front wall, a real wall, and defining a cavity between the front wall and the rear wall, the cavity including a front portion and a back portion; | The product body constitutes a base with front and rear walls defining a cavity. This is shown in an annotated image of the accused product identifying the "Base," "Front Wall," "Rear Wall," and "Cavity." (Compl. p. 9). | ¶34 | col. 2:60-65 |
| a cap configured to mate with the base and movable between an open position and a closed position, the cap including a first end secured adjacent to the back wall of the base and a second end opposite the first end, the second end including one of an engagement arm and a catch...in the closed position; | The product has a hinged lid (cap) that closes over the cavity. An annotated image identifies an "Engagement Arm" on the lid and a corresponding "Catch" on the base, as well as the "Cap with first end secured adjacent to the back wall of the base." (Compl. p. 9). | ¶34 | col. 3:30-38 |
| a tab pivotally connected to the base at a location opposite the front wall from the cavity, wherein the tab is configured and arranged such that depressing a front portion of the tab causes a rear portion of the tab to contact the cap to disengage the second end of the cap...and thereby position the cap in the open position. | The product features a push-button tab. An annotated image depicts this mechanism in action, captioned "Tab is depressed to open the container cap," showing a finger pressing the tab to lift the lid. (Compl. p. 9). | ¶34 | col. 4:51-64 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A threshold issue is the construction of "pivotally connected." The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused product's tab mechanism falls within the scope of this term as used in the patent. While the claim language is broad, the specification discloses a specific embodiment with recesses on the tab engaging protrusions on the base (’890 Patent, col. 4:65-col. 5:2), which could be used to argue for a narrower construction. A minor textual point is that the complaint quotes claim 1 with the term "real wall," which was later corrected to "rear wall" via a Certificate of Correction. (Compl. ¶33; '890 Patent, Certificate of Correction).
- Technical Questions: The complaint's evidence consists of external product images. A key technical question for the court will be how the accused mechanism actually operates internally. What evidence demonstrates that depressing the tab's front portion causes a "rear portion of the tab" to "contact the cap" to cause the disengagement, as specifically required by the claim? The provided visuals illustrate the external cause and effect but do not offer a cross-sectional or internal view to confirm that the sequence of mechanical operations matches the one recited in the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a tab pivotally connected to the base"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention, as it defines the fundamental nature of the push-button release mechanism. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether the connection in the accused product is "pivotal" as contemplated by the patent, or if it functions via a different principle (e.g., a flexible cantilever). Practitioners may focus on this term because the specific mechanical implementation of the opening feature is the core of the dispute.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a particular type of pivot, which may support a construction covering any connection that allows for rotational motion around an axis to create a lever effect. (’890 Patent, col. 6:13-14).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific structure where the tab has "recesses that are configured to engage pivot protrusions" on the base. (’890 Patent, col. 4:65-col. 5:2). A party could argue that this detailed disclosure, being the primary or only one described, should inform and limit the scope of the broader "pivotally connected" language.
The Term: "rear portion of the tab to contact the cap to disengage the second end of the cap"
- Context and Importance: This phrase recites the specific functional mechanism of release. Infringement requires not just that the tab opens the cap, but that it does so through this precise sequence of contact and disengagement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it establishes a functional limitation that requires a specific interaction between components, a common area for non-infringement arguments in mechanical cases.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A patentee might argue that this language should be read to cover any configuration where a rear part of the tab structure acts as a lever to push up on any part of the cap structure, causing the lock to release.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the "back portion 62" of the tab raising the "foot portion 44 of the lid 20" to release the lock. (’890 Patent, col. 4:56-59). A defendant could argue this requires direct contact between a specific "rear portion" of the tab and a specific "foot portion" of the cap, and that a mechanism that operates differently (e.g., by acting on the catch itself rather than the cap) would not be covered.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement is "willful and deliberate." (Compl. ¶37). This allegation appears to be based on a theory of constructive knowledge arising from Plaintiff’s marking of its own patented products pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287. (Compl. ¶36). The complaint does not allege pre-suit actual knowledge of the ’890 Patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope: How will the court construe the term "pivotally connected"? The case may turn on whether the term is given a broad meaning covering any lever-like tab, or a narrower one limited by the specific protrusion-and-recess structure disclosed in the patent's embodiments.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused product’s push-button release function in the precise manner claimed? Discovery and expert analysis of the actual product will be necessary to determine if depressing the tab causes a "rear portion" of that tab to physically "contact the cap" to force the disengagement, or if the product achieves a similar result through a different, unclaimed mechanical action.