DCT
2:18-cv-11222
Blackbird Tech LLC v. Humanscale Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies (Delaware)
- Defendant: Humanscale Corporation (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-11222, D.N.J., 06/28/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant maintains multiple facilities there, including its "largest manufacturing facility," and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s MedLink Mobile Technology Cart, when used by customers with a computer system as instructed, infringes a patent related to modular, computer-controlled medication dispensing carts.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mobile, point-of-care medication carts used in clinical settings to enhance the safety, security, and tracking of medicine administration.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent-in-suit as of at least February 7, 2017, based on a series of LinkedIn communications from a representative of a predecessor-in-interest offering to sell a portfolio including the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-02-11 | U.S. Patent No. 8,180,485 Priority Date |
| 2012-05-15 | U.S. Patent No. 8180485 Issues |
| 2017-02-07 | Alleged date of Defendant's knowledge of patent |
| 2018-06-28 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,180,485 - "Medication Dispensing Cart"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the need for improved methods of dispensing medication in hospitals and nursing homes to prevent errors, such as incorrect dosages or medicines, and to control access to medications that may be subject to abuse ('485 Patent, col. 1:7-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a mobile, software-controlled medication cart featuring an integrated computer, a modular drawer system, and a power system ('485 Patent, col. 2:45-51). Access to individual drawers is managed by software and passcodes entered via a keyboard, replacing traditional keys and paper records ('485 Patent, col. 2:51-56). The system's modularity allows for drawers to be added or removed as needed, with the system automatically sensing and integrating the new configuration ('485 Patent, col. 2:4-10). The cart can also wirelessly communicate status updates, such as low battery or unauthorized access attempts, to a central administrator ('485 Patent, col. 2:63-67).
- Technical Importance: The invention represents a shift toward automated, electronic control and auditing for point-of-care medication distribution, aiming to improve accountability and security over manual systems ('485 Patent, col. 2:58-63).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 32 (Compl. ¶ 8).
- The essential elements of independent claim 32 are:
- A medication dispensing cart having a computer, power system, and cassette drawer system.
- A base.
- A mast extending vertically from the base.
- A work surface below the computer monitor and coupled to the mast.
- A cassette drawer manager coupled to the work surface.
- A first drawer housing removably coupled beneath the cassette drawer manager.
- At least one pull-out drawer in the first housing's interior.
- A second drawer housing removably coupled beneath the first drawer housing.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "at least claim 32," reserving the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶ 18).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The MedLink Mobile Technology Cart, particularly the "M2" or "high-capacity" configuration (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The MedLink cart is a mobile workstation for healthcare providers, designed to facilitate medication distribution at the point of care (Compl. ¶ 9). The complaint alleges a workflow where a user logs into software on the cart, scans a patient's wristband, and the corresponding medication drawer unlocks automatically (Compl. p. 4). A workflow diagram in the complaint illustrates this five-step process for medication distribution (Compl. p. 4).
- The cart is available in multiple configurations, including a "high-capacity" version with two drawer housings (Compl. ¶ 10). A figure in the complaint contrasts the standard "M1" single-housing configuration with the accused "M2" dual-housing configuration (Compl. p. 5).
- Notably, the complaint states that the cart does not ship with a computer system installed; rather, users must provide their own, such as a laptop (Compl. ¶ 11). However, the complaint alleges that Defendant promotes the cart for use with its "MedLink Pro Software," which requires a computer to operate (Compl. ¶ 26).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint’s infringement theory is based on induced infringement, alleging that Defendant sells the MedLink cart and encourages its customers to add a computer system, thereby completing the infringing apparatus as claimed in the '485 patent (Compl. ¶¶ 18-19, 27). The complaint provides an annotated image of the MedLink cart, mapping its physical components to the limitations of claim 32 (Compl. ¶ 20, p. 7). Another image highlights that the "Drawer housings [are] configured to be removably coupled" (Compl. p. 8).
’485 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 32) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a medication dispensing cart having a computer with a computer monitor and a computer controller, a power system with a battery and a power system controller, and a cassette drawer system with a cassette drawer manager | The MedLink cart product, which the complaint alleges is intended to be combined with a user-supplied computer and monitor, and which contains a power system and a cassette drawer system. | ¶9, 27 | col. 9:10-14 |
| a base | The rolling base of the MedLink cart, which contains the power system. | ¶20 | col. 9:15 |
| a mast extending vertically up from the base | The vertical mast of the MedLink cart. | ¶20 | col. 9:16 |
| work surface disposed below the computer monitor and coupled to the mast | The MedLink cart’s work surface, which is positioned below the monitor mount and is coupled to the mast. | ¶20 | col. 9:17-19 |
| wherein the cassette drawer manager is coupled to the work surface so as to be positioned beneath the work surface | The component of the MedLink cart identified as the "Cassette drawer manager," which is coupled to and positioned beneath the work surface. | ¶20 | col. 9:20-22 |
| wherein the cassette drawer system further comprises a first drawer housing that is configured to be removably coupled beneath the cassette drawer manager, wherein the first drawer housing defines an interior | The upper drawer housing in the "high capacity" configuration of the MedLink cart. | ¶20 | col. 9:23-27 |
| at least one pull-out drawer disposed in the interior | The pull-out drawers contained within the drawer housings of the MedLink cart. | ¶20 | col. 9:28-29 |
| a second drawer housing that is configured to be removably coupled beneath the first drawer housing and to hold another pull-out drawer | The lower drawer housing in the "high capacity" configuration of the MedLink cart. | ¶20 | col. 9:30-33 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A principal question is whether selling an incomplete product (the cart without a computer) and encouraging its completion through marketing and software constitutes induced infringement of a claim that recites the complete combination. The defense may argue it is merely selling a staple article of commerce.
- Technical Questions: The analysis will question whether the accused components perform the functions required by the claims. For example, does the accused "cassette drawer manager" meet the functional and structural requirements of that term as defined in the '485 patent specification? Further, what is the mechanism by which the accused drawer housings are "removably coupled," and does it fall within the scope of the claims, potentially as limited by the specification's description of a specific latching mechanism?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a computer with a computer monitor and a computer controller"
- Context and Importance: This limitation is central to the inducement theory, as Plaintiff concedes this element is supplied by the end-user, not Defendant (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 27). The construction will determine whether the claim requires a pre-integrated unit sold by one party or if it can be met by combining separately-sourced components.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general phrasing "a... cart having a computer," which does not explicitly forbid the combination of components from different sources to form the infringing apparatus ('485 Patent, col. 9:10-12).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently refers to the cart as an integrated unit that "includes a computer with wireless network access and a monitor" ('485 Patent, col. 2:45-47). A defendant may argue this implies a single, complete product.
The Term: "cassette drawer manager"
- Context and Importance: This is a patentee-coined term whose definition is critical. The complaint identifies a specific component on the accused cart as the "cassette drawer manager" (Compl. ¶ 20, p. 7). Infringement will depend on whether that component's structure and function align with the term's proper construction.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself provides a structural definition based on its location relative to other parts (e.g., "coupled to the work surface so as to be positioned beneath the work surface") ('485 Patent, col. 9:20-22).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states this component "houses a cassette drawer controller and interface" ('485 Patent, col. 4:46-49). If the accused component does not house such a controller and interface, it may fall outside a narrowly construed definition of the term.
The Term: "removably coupled"
- Context and Importance: This term relates to the modularity of the drawer system, a key feature of the invention. The infringement analysis for the "first" and "second" drawer housings depends on whether the coupling mechanism in the accused cart meets this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself may be given its plain and ordinary meaning of "capable of being attached and detached without destruction."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific "latching mechanism" involving "dovetail-shaped cutout portions" and corresponding "dovetail-shaped projections," as well as "spring tabs having pins" that snap into recesses ('485 Patent, col. 5:1-25). A court could be asked to decide if this detailed description limits the scope of "removably coupled" to this specific embodiment or similar structures.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint's central cause of action is induced infringement. It alleges Defendant provides the MedLink cart with the specific intent that customers combine it with a computer to create the infringing system (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 28). This intent is allegedly evidenced by promotional materials, including product photos, videos, and brochures showing the cart in use with a computer, as well as the provision of "MedLink Pro Software" that requires a computer for operation (Compl. ¶¶ 22-26).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the '485 patent. The complaint cites LinkedIn communications from February 2017 in which Defendant's employees were allegedly notified of the patent and its relevance to the medication dispensing cart market (Compl. ¶¶ 12-16). The complaint argues that Defendant's infringement after this date has been egregious and willful (Compl. ¶¶ 29-30).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of indirect infringement: does Defendant's marketing, instructions, and provisioning of software for its incomplete cart rise to the level of actively inducing its customers to assemble and use the completed, infringing apparatus, or is it merely selling a non-infringing component with substantial non-infringing uses?
- The case will also turn on claim construction: can the term "computer", as used in the claim, be satisfied by a user-supplied laptop, or does it require a fully integrated component provided by the cart manufacturer? Similarly, will terms like "cassette drawer manager" and "removably coupled" be limited to the specific embodiments described in the patent's specification?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical correspondence: assuming a favorable claim construction for the Plaintiff, does the accused MedLink cart's drawer system, including its alleged "cassette drawer manager" and coupling mechanism, possess the specific structure and functionality required by the asserted claim?