DCT

4:17-cv-00129

Alphapointe v Composite Resources, Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:17-cv-00129, W.D. Mo., 02/21/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant transacts business within the judicial district and Plaintiff is being damaged in the State of Missouri.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its Tactical Mechanical Tourniquet product does not infringe four patents owned by Defendant related to mechanical tourniquet technology.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves mechanical tourniquets, devices critical in emergency and military medicine for stopping catastrophic blood loss from a limb.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that this declaratory judgment action was filed in response to communications from Defendant and a separate lawsuit filed by Defendant. Defendant first contacted Plaintiff on October 7, 2015, identifying four of its patents. Subsequently, on February 16, 2017, Defendant filed an infringement suit against one of Plaintiff's distributors, alleging that the same product at issue here infringes two of the patents-in-suit ('067 and '253). This prior suit creates the "actual and justiciable controversy" that forms the basis for this action.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-06-08 Priority Date for ’067 and ’807 Patents
2007-06-29 Priority Date for ’850 Patent
2007-08-28 Priority Date for ’253 Patent
2010-11-30 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,842,067
2011-02-22 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,892,253
2011-11-01 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,047,850
2014-11-18 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,888,807
2015-10-07 Defendant sends letter to Plaintiff identifying four patents
2015-10-20 Plaintiff responds to Defendant's letter denying infringement
2017-02-01 Defendant sends second letter to Plaintiff alleging infringement
2017-02-16 Defendant files infringement suit against Plaintiff's distributor
2017-02-21 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed by Plaintiff

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,842,067 - "Tourniquet and Method of Use," issued Nov. 30, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art tourniquets as potentially causing unnecessary tissue injury due to uneven pressure application and pinching, and notes they can be too bulky or heavy for users like hikers to carry. A key challenge addressed is the need for a device that can be self-applied by an injured person using only one hand (Compl., Ex. A, '067 Patent, col. 1:26-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a tourniquet featuring a dual-strap system: an inner strap positioned to slide freely within an outer sleeve. A tensioning mechanism, such as a windlass, is connected to this inner strap. When the windlass is rotated, it tightens the inner strap, which in turn applies a uniform compressive force to the limb, while the outer sleeve remains a stable platform and prevents tissue from being pinched by the tightening mechanism ('067 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-9).
  • Technical Importance: This design aims to provide a more even distribution of radial pressure around a limb compared to single-strap designs, thereby reducing the risk of localized tissue damage while ensuring effective blood flow occlusion ('067 Patent, col. 1:53-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement for claims 1-17 (Compl. ¶¶25-28). The independent claims are 1, 7, 15, and 17.
  • Independent Claim 1 recites the core combination of:
    • An outer sleeve
    • An inner strap in slidable engagement with the outer sleeve
    • A windlass connected to the inner strap for shortening its effective length
    • A restraining mechanism (e.g., buckle)
    • The inner strap forming a continuous loop
  • The complaint reserves the right to address all asserted claims, including dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,892,253 - "Tourniquet and Method of Use," issued Feb. 22, 2011

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to its related patents, the '253 Patent addresses the need for a reliable, easy-to-use tourniquet that minimizes tissue damage. This patent places particular emphasis on the security of the fastening mechanism, to prevent accidental loosening in a high-stress environment ('253 Patent, col. 1:44-58).
  • The Patented Solution: The innovation centers on a specially designed buckle. The buckle includes features such as "teeth" and an "elevated intermediate bar." These features are designed to grip the tourniquet's outer sleeve as it is passed through the buckle, creating drag and providing a secondary securing mechanism to prevent the strap from slipping, even if the primary hook-and-loop fastener fails ('253 Patent, col. 2:36-45; col. 10:15-24).
  • Technical Importance: The enhanced buckle design provides an additional layer of mechanical security, increasing the reliability of the tourniquet and reducing the risk of catastrophic failure during patient movement or in chaotic field conditions.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement for claims 1-12 (Compl. ¶¶33-35). The independent claims are 1, 2, 9, and 12.
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a tourniquet comprising:
    • A first elongated member with a "pocket"
    • A second elongated member positioned in the pocket
    • A buckle with specific structural features, including an elevated intermediate bar and tooth sets
    • A windlass
    • A securing mechanism like a hooked catch
  • The complaint reserves the right to address all asserted claims, including dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,888,807

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8888807, "Tourniquet and Method of Use," issued Nov. 18, 2014.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims methods of making a tourniquet. The claims focus on the specific steps of assembling the device, such as anchoring a first elongated member (outer sleeve) to a second elongated member (inner strap) where the inner strap forms a continuous loop, and connecting a tensioning mechanism ('807 Patent, Claim 1). The invention is the manufacturing process itself, not the resulting apparatus.
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-30 are at issue (Compl. ¶¶40-43).
  • Accused Features: The complaint argues that Plaintiff's method of making its TMT product does not infringe because the process allegedly does not include the specific anchoring, positioning, and looping steps required by the asserted method claims (Compl. ¶¶40-43).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,047,850

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8047850, "Training Tourniquet and Method of Use," issued Nov. 1, 2011.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the problem of safely training personnel to use a tourniquet without causing injury to the "patient." The invention is a training-specific tourniquet that includes a "non-functioning tensioning mechanism," such as an inoperative windlass. This allows a trainee to practice the physical motions of applying and tightening the device, but the mechanism is designed to not actually create a compressive force on the limb ('850 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:3-15).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-17 are at issue (Compl. ¶¶48-51).
  • Accused Features: Plaintiff's TMT is a functional, life-saving device. The complaint asserts non-infringement on the grounds that the TMT, by its nature, does not contain the "non-functioning tensioning mechanism" that is a central element of the claimed training device (Compl. ¶48).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused product is the "Tactical Mechanical Tourniquet" ("TMT tourniquet"), manufactured by Plaintiff Alphapointe (Compl. ¶9).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the TMT as a competitor to Defendant's "Combat Application Tourniquet" ("CAT tourniquet") (Compl. ¶¶9-10). It is presented as a functional medical device intended for sale, including for government procurement (Compl. ¶19). The complaint's description of the TMT's functionality is primarily negative, outlining what the device allegedly lacks in order to establish non-infringement. For example, it states the TMT does not include an "inner strap in slidable engagement with an outer sleeve" or a "pocket" containing a second elongated member (Compl. ¶¶25, 33).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’067 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged (Non-)Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an inner strap in slidable engagement with the outer sleeve The TMT "does not include an inner strap in slidable engagement with an outer sleeve" ¶25 col. 6:17-19
a windlass connected to the inner strap The TMT does not include "a windlass connected to an inner strap" ¶25 col. 3:3-5
wherein the inner strap forms a continuous loop extending from a first end of the outer sleeve to at least the windlass and back to the first end of the outer sleeve The TMT does not include an inner strap configured in a continuous loop as claimed ¶25 col. 11:20-24

’253 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged (Non-)Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first elongated member comprising: ... (iii) a pocket; The TMT "does not include a pocket" ¶33 col. 6:4-6
a second elongated member positioned in the pocket The TMT does not include a "second elongated member positioned in the pocket" ¶33 col. 13:27-28
an inner strap in slidable engagement with an outersleeve The TMT "does not comprise an inner strap in slidable engagement with an outersleeve" (alleged for claims 2-11) ¶34 col. 14:46-48
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The central dispute for the '067 and '253 patents appears to be one of claim scope and factual equivalence. The court will have to determine whether the components of Plaintiff's TMT, regardless of their designated names, fall within the scope of claim terms like "inner strap," "outer sleeve," and "pocket." The case may explore whether the TMT's design achieves the same function in a way that is structurally equivalent to the patented inventions.
    • Technical Questions: For the '850 patent on a training device, the primary question is one of applicability. A key factual question will be whether the accused TMT has any non-functional or training-only variant that could plausibly infringe, a detail not provided in the complaint. For the '807 method patent, the dispute will be entirely factual, requiring discovery into Plaintiff's proprietary manufacturing processes to determine if they align with the claimed method steps.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term (from '067 Patent): "inner strap in slidable engagement with the outer sleeve"

    • Context and Importance: This phrase describes the core mechanism of the '067 patent. Plaintiff's primary non-infringement argument rests on the assertion that its TMT lacks this specific structure (Compl. ¶25). The construction of this term will likely be a central issue in the case.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to the "inner strap" with general language, suggesting it could be other "elongated types of materials" such as a "rope, belt, tubing, hose, band" ('067 Patent, col. 6:15-18). This could support an interpretation covering a variety of internal tensioning members, not just a flat strap.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and detailed description show a distinct fabric strap (18) moving freely inside a sewn fabric sleeve (14) ('067 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 6:17-23). A party could argue that "slidable engagement" requires this specific two-component, low-friction relationship, limiting the claim to constructions that closely resemble the embodiments.

  • Term (from '253 Patent): "pocket"

    • Context and Importance: Plaintiff explicitly denies that its TMT includes a "pocket" as required by claim 1 of the '253 patent (Compl. ¶33). The presence or absence of a structure meeting this definition is therefore a key point of dispute.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines "pocket" as an "interior area or inner space 44 between the panels 42 and 46" ('253 Patent, col. 6:4-6). This language could be argued to encompass any structure with two layers of material that form an internal channel through which another component can pass.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The common meaning of "pocket" may imply a more deliberately constructed and enclosed feature. Furthermore, the embodiments consistently depict this feature as being formed by sewing two panels together to create a sleeve ('253 Patent, Fig. 4). This may support an argument that the term is limited to such a purpose-built structure, not an incidental space between layers.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint notes that Defendant, in its lawsuit against Plaintiff's distributor, alleged direct, indirect, and induced infringement (Compl. ¶18). However, this declaratory judgment complaint is focused on establishing the absence of the direct infringement necessary to support any indirect infringement theory, stating that Plaintiff "does not directly or indirectly infringe" (Compl. ¶21).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not alleged by the declaratory judgment Plaintiff. However, the complaint establishes that Defendant put Plaintiff on notice of the patents-in-suit as early as October 7, 2015 (Compl. ¶12). This fact would be central to any future willfulness claim brought by Defendant.

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

  • A central issue will be one of structural interpretation: does Plaintiff's Tactical Mechanical Tourniquet contain components that, while perhaps named differently, are structurally and functionally equivalent to the "inner strap in slidable engagement with an outer sleeve" and "pocket" elements at the heart of the '067 and '253 patents? The resolution will depend heavily on claim construction and a factual comparison of the technologies.
  • A second key question is one of patent applicability: can the '850 patent, which is explicitly directed to a "non-functioning" training tourniquet, be plausibly asserted against Plaintiff's TMT, which is marketed as a fully functional, life-saving medical device?
  • A final core question will be evidentiary and procedural: for the '807 method patent, the dispute hinges on facts related to Plaintiff's confidential manufacturing process. The case will question what evidence can be produced through discovery to prove or disprove that Plaintiff's methods incorporate the specific anchoring and assembly steps recited in the claims.