DCT

3:12-cv-00296

Diagnostic Devices Inc v. Taidoc Technology Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:12-cv-00296, W.D.N.C., 05/10/2012
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on the defendant having conducted business in the district and having agreed in writing to venue in the Western District of North Carolina for matters in dispute.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of two patents related to blood glucose monitoring, arguing that Defendant's assertion of these patents breaches a prior litigation settlement agreement.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue relates to electrochemical biosensing systems, specifically blood glucose meters and the disposable test strips they use for diabetes management.
  • Key Procedural History: The parties have a complex history, beginning with a manufacturing relationship that ended in 2008. A prior lawsuit between the parties was dismissed with prejudice following a "universal Settlement Agreement and Release" on March 30, 2012. Plaintiffs allege that this settlement released Defendant from all claims that "could have been brought" in that action. Just over a month later, Defendant sent Plaintiffs a cease-and-desist letter and filed a new patent infringement lawsuit in another district, asserting the patents-in-suit. This declaratory judgment action followed, along with Plaintiffs' requests for reexamination of both patents at the USPTO.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-02-14 '040 Patent Priority Date
2005-05-27 '766 Patent Priority Date
2008-01-08 '766 Patent Issue Date
2008 (Q4) DDI ceases buying products from TaiDoc
2009-04-07 '040 Patent Issue Date
2011-07-28 TaiDoc files Amended Counterclaims in prior lawsuit
2012-03-30 Settlement Agreement and Release executed
2012-05-01 TaiDoc sends cease-and-desist letter to Plaintiffs
2012-05-04 TaiDoc files infringement lawsuit in E.D. Pennsylvania
2012-05-09 Plaintiffs file for reexamination of '040 and '766 patents
2012-05-10 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,514,040 - "Intelligent biosensing meter" (Issued Apr. 7, 2009)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of biosensing meters becoming incompatible with new batches of test strips, which may require different calibration parameters. The conventional solution of providing a separate "code card" with each new batch of strips is described as expensive and impractical ('040 Patent, col. 1:26-53).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a meter with a "parameter storing unit" that holds multiple pre-loaded sets of calibration parameters. The meter also has a single slot that can accept either a test strip or a "code card" containing new parameters not already stored in the meter ('040 Patent, Abstract). The meter is designed to recognize which type of item has been inserted and can be updated in the field, providing a more flexible and cost-effective system ('040 Patent, col. 2:55-65).
  • Technical Importance: This design aims to reduce manufacturing costs and logistical complexity in the diabetes testing market by minimizing the need to produce and distribute code cards with every batch of test strips ('040 Patent, col. 2:11-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment on all claims of the patent (Compl. ¶44). Independent claim 1 is central.
  • Independent Claim 1 (original) requires:
    • A "parameter storing unit" with a plurality of parameters.
    • At least one "slot" for receiving a sample strip or a code card.
    • The sample strip having a "short circuit" to switch on the meter.
    • A "button" for choosing parameters from the storing unit without a code card.
    • A "memory unit" for storing results or parameters from the code card.
    • A "microprocessor" for reading parameters and controlling the measurement.

U.S. Patent No. 7,316,766 - "Electrochemical biosensor strip" (Issued Jan. 8, 2008)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies an issue with manufacturing disposable biosensor strips where the test reagent does not adhere well to the underlying hydrophobic substrate (e.g., PET plastic). This can lead to the reagent flaking off or spreading unevenly, which compromises test accuracy ('766 Patent, col. 1:49-60).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes applying a "hydrophilic layer" to the strip's base before the test reagent is applied. This layer is designed to improve the bonding and stability of the reagent ('766 Patent, Abstract). Critically, the hydrophilic layer is laid on the area of the base excluding the electrode system and only on "about 50% to 0%" of the electrode area under the test reagent, to prevent interference with the electrical signal transmission ('766 Patent, col. 2:17-24).
  • Technical Importance: The invention addresses a fundamental challenge in the mass production of reliable biosensor strips by improving the interface between the chemical and physical components of the strip, thereby enhancing test accuracy ('766 Patent, col. 7:1-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment on all claims of the patent (Compl. ¶61). Independent claim 1 is central.
  • Independent Claim 1 (original) requires:
    • A base.
    • An electrode system laid on the base.
    • A cover forming a cavity.
    • A "hydrophilic layer" laid under the test reagent.
    • The hydrophilic layer is laid on an area of the base "excluded from the electrode system" and "also laid on the electrode system about 50% to 0% of the electrode system corresponding to the test reagent."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint does not accuse a specific product of infringement but rather seeks a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs' products do not infringe. The products at the center of the dispute are blood glucose monitoring systems, including meters and test strips, that have been sold by Plaintiffs under brand names such as "Prodigy Autocode" and "Prodigy Voice" since 2008 (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 14a-d).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these are blood glucose meters and test strips for use by individuals with diabetes (Compl. ¶14b). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical operation of Plaintiffs' products. Instead, it focuses on the legal dispute arising from Defendant's allegations that these products "made and sold" by Plaintiffs infringe the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint is for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and does not contain infringement allegations or a claim chart. Plaintiffs make broad allegations that their products do not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the '040 and '766 patents, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 59).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent claims and the nature of the dispute, several technical questions may arise if the case proceeds past the issue of the settlement agreement.
    • For the '040 Patent:
      • Structural Questions: A key question is whether Plaintiffs' meters embody the specific architecture of claim 1. For example, does the meter have both a "parameter storing unit" and a distinct "memory unit" as claimed, and does it use a physical "button for choosing different parameters" when a code card is not present?
    • For the '766 Patent:
      • Technical Questions: Infringement analysis will likely focus on the physical construction of Plaintiffs' test strips. The central question is whether the strips contain a "hydrophilic layer" arranged in the highly specific manner required by claim 1—namely, being laid on "about 50% to 0%" of the electrode area corresponding to the test reagent. Proving or disproving the presence and precise placement of such a layer would be a key evidentiary issue.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • '040 Patent
    • The Term: "parameter storing unit"
    • Context and Importance: Claim 1 recites both a "parameter storing unit" and a "memory unit." The relationship and potential distinction between these two terms will be critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because if they are construed to require two physically or functionally separate components, it could provide a basis for non-infringement if the accused meters use a single, integrated memory module for all functions.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide a detailed definition distinguishing the two, which may support an interpretation that they can be logical partitions of a single memory device (e.g., ROM and RAM).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's block diagram, Figure 2, depicts the "PARAMETER STORING UNIT (15)" and "MEMORY UNIT (19)" as separate boxes, which could support an argument that the claims require distinct structures ('040 Patent, Fig. 2).
  • '766 Patent
    • The Term: "laid on the electrode system about 50% to 0% of the electrode system"
    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the extent to which the hydrophilic layer can overlap with the electrodes. Its construction is central to both infringement and validity. Practitioners may focus on this term because its numerical range, combined with the word "about," raises questions of definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent explains the goal is to avoid interfering with signal transmission, suggesting any minimal overlap that achieves this goal could fall within the claim ('766 Patent, col. 2:1-3). The term "about" also suggests the range is not rigidly fixed.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the "50% to 0%" range is a critical feature of the invention, intended to strictly limit the permitted overlap ('766 Patent, col. 4:4-6). The reexamination certificate, which amended this claim, retained the "about 50% to 0%" language, suggesting its perceived importance to the patentee ('766 Patent, Reexam Cert., col. 2:8-14).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Breach of Settlement Agreement: The primary claim in the complaint is that Defendant’s post-settlement cease-and-desist letter and filing of the Philadelphia Lawsuit breach the March 30, 2012 Settlement Agreement (Compl. ¶¶ 31-40). Plaintiffs argue that the agreement released Defendant from "any and all claims whatsoever... that could have been brought in, the Action," and that Defendant's patent infringement claims fall into this category because Defendant was aware of its patents and Plaintiffs' products during the prior litigation (Compl. ¶¶ 32-33).
  • Inequitable Conduct: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that both patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct (Compl. ¶¶ 51-57, 68-74). The allegation is based on the Defendant's failure to disclose prior art to the USPTO during prosecution, specifically related to corresponding patent applications filed in Taiwan that were allegedly material to patentability and cited in foreign prosecution (Compl. ¶¶ 53-54, 70-71).

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

  • A paramount issue will be one of contract interpretation and preclusion: does the broad release language in the March 30, 2012 settlement agreement, which discharged claims that "could have been brought" in a prior action, bar the Defendant's current patent infringement assertions? The court's decision on this threshold legal issue could be dispositive.
  • Should the case proceed to the patent merits, a central validity question will be one of definiteness and enablement for the '766 patent: is the claim limitation requiring a hydrophilic layer on "about 50% to 0%" of the electrode system sufficiently clear and enabled to apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the claimed invention's scope, or is it invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112?
  • A key underlying infringement question for the '040 patent will be one of structural differentiation: do the accused meters contain both a "parameter storing unit" and a separate "memory unit" as arguably required by the claim language and diagrams, or is there a mismatch between the claimed architecture and the accused product's design?