DCT
0:19-cv-02282
Apothecary Products LLC v. Chaoting Ren
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Apothecary Products LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Chaoting Ren a/k/a Shenzhenshi Boruinasijiaoyukejiyouxiangongsi a/k/a Fullive (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Merchant & Gould P.C.
- Case Identification: 0:19-cv-02282, D. Minn., 11/26/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Minnesota because the Defendant, an online seller, has marketed, offered to sell, and sold accused products to residents of Minnesota through Amazon.com.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s weekly pill organizers infringe a patent related to a push-button-release mechanism for multiple compartment containers.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns medication management devices, specifically pill containers designed for ease of use and secure closure, a market segment where accessibility for users with dexterity limitations is a consideration.
- Key Procedural History: This filing is an Amended Complaint. The complaint also notes that a Certificate of Correction was issued for the asserted patent, correcting a typographical error in the claim language. Plaintiff alleges its own commercial products are marked with the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-11-02 | U.S. Patent No. 7,624,890 Priority Date |
| 2009-12-01 | U.S. Patent No. 7624890 Issued |
| 2019-11-26 | Amended Complaint Filed |
| 2020-04-28 | Certificate of Correction for U.S. Patent No. 7,624,890 Issued |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,624,890 - Multiple Compartment Container, issued December 1, 2009
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes a need for multiple compartment pill containers that are easy to use, have sufficient capacity, and can be carried conveniently to increase the likelihood of proper medication adherence (’890 Patent, col. 1:11-24). The abstract further notes the goal of creating 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, Abstract).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a container featuring a specific lid-opening mechanism. Each compartment's hinged cap is held closed by a locking arm that engages a catch on the container's base. To open it, a user depresses a separate, pivotally connected tab. This action causes a rear portion of the tab to act as a lever, pushing up on the cap to disengage the locking arm and pop the lid open (’890 Patent, col. 3:49-66; FIG. 8). This design allows for one-handed, push-button operation.
- Technical Importance: This mechanism provides a secure closure to prevent accidental spilling while offering a simple, low-force method of opening, which is a significant usability feature for medication containers.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶36).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A base with a front wall, a rear wall, and a cavity between them.
- A cap movable between an open and closed position, with a first end secured near the base's back wall and a second end that includes a locking feature (one of an engagement arm or catch) that engages a corresponding feature 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 to contact the cap, disengaging the lock and moving the cap to the open position.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are "knockoff pill organizer" products sold by Defendant on Amazon.com under the seller name "Fullive," including a "Pill Organizer - Weekly AM/PM Pill Case" (Compl. ¶23).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused product is a seven-day, fourteen-compartment (AM/PM) pill organizer. The complaint alleges it competes directly with Plaintiff's own "EZY DOSE" brand products (Compl. ¶13, ¶22). A screenshot from the Amazon product page shows a pill organizer with individual push-buttons for each compartment lid. The complaint's infringement allegations focus on the mechanical operation of this push-button lid release system (Compl. ¶35). The complaint includes a screenshot from the Defendant's Amazon listing identifying the product and seller. (Compl. ¶23).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'890 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A container comprising: 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's main body is alleged to be the claimed "base," which has front and rear walls defining cavities for holding pills. An annotated image shows the labeled "Base," "Front Wall," and "Rear Wall" of a single compartment. | ¶35 | col. 6:2-5 |
| 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... on the front wall of the base when the cap is in the closed position; and | Each compartment lid is alleged to be the "cap," which is secured at the back and locks at the front. An annotated image purports to show the cap's "Engagement Arm" locking onto a "Catch" on the base's front wall. | ¶35 | col. 6:6-14 |
| 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 push-button for each compartment is alleged to be the claimed "tab." An annotated image shows a finger depressing this button, which allegedly causes the lid to open, thereby meeting the functional requirements of this limitation. The image is labeled "Tab is depressed to open the container cap." | ¶35 | col. 6:15-22 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused product's push-button mechanism constitutes a "tab pivotally connected to the base" as that phrase is understood in the context of the patent. The defense may argue that the term "tab" implies the specific lever structure disclosed in the patent's embodiments (e.g., ’890 Patent, FIG. 11), potentially raising an argument that the accused device uses a different, non-equivalent structure.
- Technical Questions: The infringement allegation hinges on a specific sequence of mechanical operations: the depressed "tab" causes a "rear portion" to "contact the cap" and "disengage" the lock. The complaint's visual evidence shows the external action but does not depict the internal mechanism of the accused product. The case may require evidence demonstrating the precise internal interaction between the accused button and lid to determine if it functions as claimed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a tab pivotally connected to the base"
- Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention's push-button mechanism. The infringement case depends on the accused product's button qualifying as a "tab" that is "pivotally connected." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a broader range of push-button mechanisms are covered or if the claim is limited to the specific pivoting structure shown in the patent's figures.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a particular type of pivot, which could support a construction covering any structure that functions as a lever rotating around a fixed point.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently depicts a specific embodiment where the tab has "recesses that are configured to engage pivot protrusions... on the front end portion of the base" (’890 Patent, col. 3:56-66; FIG. 11). A defendant could argue this disclosure limits the scope of "pivotally connected" to this particular structure or its close equivalent.
The Term: "causes a rear portion of the tab to contact the cap to disengage"
- Context and Importance: This phrase recites the specific function of the lever action. The analysis of infringement will require a factual determination of whether the accused product operates via this exact mechanism. A mismatch in the mechanical action—for instance, if the button disengages the lock indirectly without contacting the cap in the claimed manner—could be a basis for a non-infringement argument.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plaintiff may argue this functional language should be interpreted based on its plain meaning, covering any lever action where depressing the front causes the rear to rise and act on the cap.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a specific interaction where a "center member [64] is configured to contact the bottom of the locking arm [38] and move [it] from the engaged position to a disengaged position" (’890 Patent, col. 3:55-59). The defense may argue that "contact the cap" requires this specific interaction with the locking arm portion of the cap, not just a general push on the cap's underside.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the infringement has been and continues to be "willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶38). This allegation is based on at least "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. ¶14, ¶37).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural scope: does the accused product's push-button, as a whole, meet the definition of the claimed "tab pivotally connected to the base," or can the defense demonstrate a meaningful structural difference from the mechanism described and depicted in the '890 patent's specification?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of mechanical function: does the internal mechanism of the accused product operate by the specific lever action recited in Claim 1, where a "rear portion of the tab" directly "contact[s] the cap to disengage" the lock, or does it achieve the same result through a different, non-claimed sequence of movements? The external visuals in the complaint do not resolve this internal operational question.