DCT
0:19-cv-02281
Apothecary Products LLC v. Wu
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Apothecary Products LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: JOHN DOE a/k/a Coongga, an unknown entity
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Merchant & Gould P.C.
- Case Identification: 0:19-cv-02281, D. Minn., 08/16/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant conducting business in Minnesota by selling and shipping the accused products to residents of the state via the Amazon.com online marketplace.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s weekly pill organizer, sold on Amazon.com, infringes a patent related to a push-button mechanism for opening the container's compartments.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to multi-compartment containers for medication management, which are significant in the consumer healthcare market for promoting medication adherence.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's own commercial products are marked with the patent-in-suit number, which may be relevant to issues of notice and willfulness.
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 Issued |
| 2019-08-16 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7624890, "MULTIPLE COMPARTMENT CONTAINER," issued December 1, 2009 (’890 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for multi-compartment containers, such as pill organizers, that are easy to use while also preventing the lids from opening inadvertently (’890 Patent, col. 1:19-24, col. 1:29-32). The design aims to balance secure closure with ease of access for the user.
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a lid arrangement for a container featuring a hinged cap that locks to the base and a separate, pivotally connected tab. To open a compartment, the user depresses a front portion of the tab. This action causes a rear portion of the tab to pivot upward, make contact with the locked cap, and mechanically disengage the cap from the base, thereby positioning the cap in an open position (’890 Patent, col. 3:46-56). This mechanism allows for one-touch opening without requiring the user to pry open the lid.
- Technical Importance: This mechanical configuration provides a method for easily opening a securely latched container, a feature that can be particularly beneficial for users with limited hand strength or dexterity.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 of the ’890 Patent (Compl. ¶33, ¶35).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A base having a front wall, a rear wall, and defining a cavity.
- A cap configured to mate with the base and movable between an open and closed position, where the cap has a first end secured near the base's rear wall and a second end that includes a locking mechanism (one of an engagement arm and a catch) that engages a corresponding mechanism on the base's front wall.
- 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 and disengage its second end from the base's front wall, moving the cap to the open position.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is the "Coongga Weekly Pill Organizer Large 7 Day Pill Box Case with Removable Compartments and Easy Push Button Design for Vitamin, Pills, Fish Oil, Supplement" sold on Amazon.com by the seller "Coongga" (Compl. ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is described as a "knockoff pill organizer" featuring multiple compartments, each corresponding to a day of the week (Compl. ¶22; p. 6).
- The complaint alleges the product utilizes an "Easy Push Button Design" and "the hottest pop open design," where each compartment "can be opened with a simple press" (Compl. ¶22, ¶25). This functionality is presented as being particularly convenient for elders or individuals with sore fingers (Compl. p. 6). The complaint provides an annotated image showing the accused product's base, cavity, and front and rear walls (Compl. p. 9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'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 accused product is alleged to have a base with front and rear walls that form a cavity for holding pills. | ¶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 engaging the other of an engagement arm and a catch on the front wall of the base when the cap is in the closed position | The accused product allegedly has a hinged cap with a first end secured to the base's rear, and a second, free end that has an engagement arm and a catch to lock it to the front wall of the base. An image in the complaint identifies the alleged engagement arm and catch on the product (Compl. p. 9). | ¶34 | col. 3:11-34 |
| 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 from the front wall of the base and thereby position the cap in the open position | The accused product allegedly features a tab that, when depressed by a user's finger, pivots to push the cap open, disengaging the lock. The complaint includes a photograph illustrating this action (Compl. p. 9). | ¶34 | col. 3:46-56 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential issue may be whether the specific locking mechanism of the accused product constitutes an "engagement arm" and a "catch" as those terms are used in the patent. The construction of these terms will be central to determining if the accused latch falls within the scope of the claim.
- Technical Questions: The infringement allegation rests on the assertion that depressing the accused tab "causes a rear portion of the tab to contact the cap to disengage" it. A factual question for the court may be whether the evidence, such as through physical inspection or expert analysis, confirms this specific mechanical interaction occurs as claimed, or if the product operates via a different, unclaimed mechanism.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a tab pivotally connected to the base"
- Context and Importance: The entire opening mechanism depends on the nature of this connection. The definition will determine what types of connections (e.g., a molded living hinge versus a separate pin-and-axle assembly) satisfy this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specific method of attachment dictates the mechanical operation of the accused feature.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, not specifying a particular type of pivot. This may support an interpretation that includes any connection allowing for the requisite pivotal motion.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses an embodiment where the tab includes "recesses that are configured to engage pivot protrusions" on the base, suggesting a distinct, multi-part connection (’890 Patent, col. 3:57-64; Fig. 10). A party could argue this embodiment limits the scope of "pivotally connected."
The Term: "one of an engagement arm and a catch engaging the other"
- Context and Importance: This phrase defines the locking mechanism. The dispute will likely center on whether the physical components of the accused device's latch can be properly characterized as an "engagement arm" and a "catch."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the function broadly as a "locking arm 38 that is configured to engage the outside surface 40 of the front wall" (’890 Patent, col. 3:28-30). This functional description could support a broader reading covering various interlocking structures.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description shows a specific structure: "a downwardly extending locking arm 38 includ[ing] a hooked end" that engages a "catch 42" (’890 Patent, col. 3:30-34; Fig. 8). This specific disclosure of a "hooked" arm could be cited to argue for a narrower construction limited to similar geometries.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement is willful and deliberate (Compl. ¶37). This allegation is based on alleged constructive knowledge of the ’890 patent, supported by the assertion that Plaintiff’s own commercial products are marked with the patent number pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287 (Compl. ¶36).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the mechanical terms "engagement arm," "catch," and "pivotally connected," as defined by the patent's specification, be construed to read on the specific physical structures and connections used in the accused pill organizer?
- A central evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused product's push-button feature operate through the precise mechanism required by Claim 1—a pivoting tab directly contacting and disengaging the cap—or is there a material difference in its mechanical action that places it outside the claim's scope?