DCT
0:19-cv-02279
Apothecary Products LLC v. Shenzhenshi Haili Shangmao Gongsi
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Apothecary Products LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: John Doe a/k/a Shenzhenshi Haili Shangmao Youxian Gongsi a/k/a Haili (an unknown entity)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
- Case Identification: 0:19-cv-02279, D. Minn., 08/16/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Minnesota because Defendant conducts business in the district via the online marketplace Amazon.com, including offering to sell and shipping accused products to Minnesota residents.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s push-button pill organizer product, sold on Amazon.com, infringes a patent related to a specialized container with a push-tab opening mechanism.
- Technical Context: The technology pertains to consumer medication management devices, specifically multi-compartment pill containers, a market segment where ease of use is a key feature for patient compliance.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s own commercial products are marked with the patent-in-suit’s number, which may be used to support allegations of willful infringement. The complaint also includes a count for false advertising under the Lanham Act, alleging Defendant falsely markets its product as "suitable for medical purpose" without being properly registered with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
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 |
| 2019-08-12 | Date of FDA Establishment Registration database searches |
| 2019-08-16 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,624,890 - “MULTIPLE COMPARTMENT CONTAINER”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for pill containers that are easy for users to open, which increases medication adherence, while simultaneously preventing the container from opening inadvertently (’890 Patent, col. 1:19-25; col. 2:29-33).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a container with a hinged lid that is secured by a catch mechanism. To open the container, the user depresses a specially designed tab that is pivotally connected to the container's base. This action causes a rear portion of the tab to act as a lever, contacting the lid to disengage the catch and pop the lid open, providing an easy, one-touch opening action ('890 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:48-61).
- Technical Importance: This push-to-open lever mechanism provides a mechanical advantage, making the container easier to operate for individuals with limited hand strength or dexterity, a common challenge in the medication management field (Compl. ¶13).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1, which has been corrected by a Certificate of Correction to change "real wall" to "rear wall," include:
- A base having a front wall, a rear wall, and defining a cavity between them.
- A cap movable between an open and closed position, with a first end secured near the base's rear wall and a second end that has an engagement arm or a catch that engages a corresponding feature on the front wall of the base to hold it closed.
- A tab pivotally connected to the base, configured such that depressing a front portion of the tab causes a rear portion of the tab to contact the cap, disengaging the second end of the cap from the base's front wall and opening the cap.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Pill Organizer, Push Button Weekly Pill Box," sold on Amazon.com under ASIN No. B07PBZH1P5 by the seller "Shenzhenshi Haili Shangmao Youxian Gongsi," also listed as "Haili" (Compl. ¶¶3, 22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is a weekly pill organizer with seven compartments and is marketed as having an "EASY TO OPEN" push-button design (Compl. ¶25).
- The product description states that "upon a light touch of which, the pillbox will open automatically," a feature specifically noted as beneficial for people with arthritis, children, and seniors (Compl. ¶25).
- The complaint characterizes the product as a "knockoff" that directly competes with Plaintiff's own "EZY DOSE" brand pill container on the Amazon marketplace (Compl. ¶¶12, 22).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides an annotated image of the accused product, alleging that depressing the tab opens the container cap (Compl. p. 9).
U.S. Patent No. 7,624,890 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a base having a front wall, a rear wall, and defining a cavity between the front wall and the rear wall, the cavity including a front portion and a back portion; | The accused product is a container with a base that defines a cavity for holding pills, with front and rear walls (Compl. p. 9). | ¶34 | col. 2:60-63 |
| 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... | The accused product has a hinged cap that closes over the base, with an "Engagement Arm" that engages a "Catch" on the base to keep it closed (Compl. p. 9). | ¶34 | col. 3:30-37 |
| 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 accused product has a push-button tab. The complaint alleges that depressing this tab causes it to pivot and push up on the cap, disengaging the catch and opening the compartment (Compl. p. 9). | ¶34 | col. 4:48-55 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement read appears to be facially plausible based on the complaint's visual evidence and product descriptions. A potential area for dispute may revolve around the scope of the term "pivotally connected." The defense could argue for a narrow definition that excludes the specific manner in which the accused product's tab is joined to its base.
- Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question will be whether the internal mechanism of the accused product operates exactly as claimed. The complaint's allegations are based on external observations and marketing materials. Discovery would be needed to confirm that depressing the accused tab causes a "rear portion of the tab" to physically "contact the cap" and create the lever action required for disengagement, as opposed to operating via a different non-infringing mechanical principle.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "tab pivotally connected to the base"
Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claimed opening mechanism. The nature of this connection dictates how the lever action is achieved. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defense could argue that the accused product's tab uses a flexible or cantilevered connection that is not truly "pivotal" as required by the claim.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes an embodiment where the tab has recesses that "slide into and snap into engagement with the pivot protrusions" on the base ('890 Patent, col. 4:63-66). This could support an interpretation that "pivotally connected" is not limited to a traditional pin-in-hole hinge but includes other connections that permit rotational movement.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The defense may point to the consistent use of the term "pivot" and the clear rotational action depicted in figures like FIG. 8 to argue for a more constrained definition, potentially excluding connections that rely primarily on material flexure.
The Term: "a rear portion of the tab to contact the cap"
Context and Importance: This limitation defines the specific cause-and-effect of the lever action. Infringement hinges on the accused product operating via this specific contact. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused tab actuates the release mechanism without a rear portion making contact with the cap (e.g., by deforming to directly pull on the catch), it may not infringe.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function as the tab's back portion being "configured to raise the foot portion... of the lid... and release the locking arm" ('890 Patent, col. 4:51-54). This functional language may support a broader view of what constitutes "contact."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A specific embodiment describes a "center member" of the tab contacting the "bottom of the locking arm" of the cap ('890 Patent, col. 4:55-58). A defendant could argue this more specific interaction is required, and that any other form of actuation falls outside the claim.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations of induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that infringement "has been and continues to be willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶37). This allegation is based on constructive knowledge of the ’890 Patent, which Plaintiff asserts arises from its compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287 by marking its own patented products (Compl. ¶¶13, 36).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: how will the court define "pivotally connected"? The case may turn on whether the specific snap-fit or flexible connection in the accused product falls within the scope of this term as it is used and described in the patent.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: what will discovery reveal about the internal mechanics of the accused device? The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused push-button operates via the specific lever action recited in the claim—a rear part of the tab pushing on the cap—or through an alternative, non-infringing release mechanism.