DCT
2:22-cv-05230
Medical Inflatable Exhibits Inc v. Atlantic Health Systems Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Medical Inflatable Exhibits, Inc. (Texas)
- Defendant: Atlantic Health System, Inc. (New Jersey)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Amatong McCoy LLC; Duffy North
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-05230, D.N.J., 08/25/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant being a New Jersey corporation with a principal place of business within the District of New Jersey.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s large, inflatable, walk-through heart models, used for public outreach, infringe three patents related to the design and method of exhibiting such anatomical models.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns large-scale, portable, educational exhibits used by healthcare organizations for marketing and public health awareness events.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges sending a notice letter to Defendant regarding a pending patent application (which later issued as the '786 Patent) as early as 2010. U.S. Patent No. 8,727,786 underwent an Ex Parte Reexamination, with a certificate issued in 2015, which confirmed the patentability of amended claims. Plaintiff also alleges sending a notice letter regarding the issued patents in 2021.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-03-29 | Earliest Priority Date for ’835, ’067, and ’786 Patents |
| 2010-06-08 | Plaintiff sends notice letter regarding pending application for '786 Patent |
| 2010-01-01 | Alleged first use of accused products by Defendant (approx.) |
| 2014-05-20 | U.S. Patent No. 8,727,786 Issued |
| 2015-08-27 | Reexamination Certificate for U.S. Patent No. 8,727,786 Issued |
| 2017-02-07 | U.S. Patent No. 9,564,067 Issued |
| 2019-07-02 | U.S. Patent No. 10,339,835 Issued |
| 2021-01-26 | Plaintiff sends notice letter regarding issued patents |
| 2022-08-25 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,727,786 - "Inflatable Exhibit of a Human Heart and Method," Issued May 20, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for an improved large-scale, three-dimensional heart model that is portable and easily erectable, contrasting it with permanent, rigid, multi-story structures like the one at the Franklin Museum which are not readily movable ('786 Patent, col. 1:59-col. 2:10).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable, large-scale, inflatable exhibit of a human heart. Its key feature is a structure that inflates from a horizontal base or "cross-sectional plane" (e.g., a mat) to form a single-story, walk-through passageway ('786 Patent, col. 2:50-59). This design allows visitors to traverse representations of the heart's chambers on a single level, enhancing portability and educational efficiency ('786 Patent, col. 4:10-18).
- Technical Importance: This approach enabled the creation of large, immersive anatomical exhibits that could be transported and set up at various public events, such as health fairs and community outreach programs, a significant logistical improvement over static museum displays ('786 Patent, col. 2:10-13).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least representative Claim 1 (as amended by the Reexamination Certificate) (Compl. ¶90, 84).
- Essential elements of reexamined Claim 1 include:
- An inflatable infrastructure inflatable to a 3D partial representation of a human heart at a scale greater than 15:1.
- The infrastructure includes a "cross-sectional plane thereacross."
- A "walk-through passageway" is defined by and extends through the infrastructure, with the cross-sectional plane defining a plane of the passageway.
- The infrastructure provides a physical representation of a heart with inflatable internal walls extending upwardly from the cross-sectional plane.
- This configuration provides chambers and a "single-story passageway."
- A physical representation of a human heart valve is included within the infrastructure.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶94).
U.S. Patent No. 9,564,067 - "Inflatable Exhibit of a Human Heart and Method," Issued February 7, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the parent '786 patent, this invention addresses the need for a portable, large-scale, three-dimensional heart model for educational purposes ('067 Patent, col. 2:5-15).
- The Patented Solution: This patent, a continuation of the '786 patent's application, also describes a large-scale inflatable heart exhibit. It focuses on the structural arrangement, including inflatable walls that define internal "rooms representing chambers of the heart" and an "outside surface shaped and contoured to represent" portions of a human heart, including 3D features ('067 Patent, col. 11:51-col. 12:13).
- Technical Importance: The patent emphasizes creating a more anatomically representative and immersive experience by defining both the internal room-like chambers and the contoured external appearance of the heart in a portable, inflatable format ('067 Patent, col. 8:56-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least representative Claim 7 (Compl. ¶63, 71).
- Essential elements of independent Claim 7 include:
- An inflatable infrastructure inflatable to a 3D representation of a human heart at a scale greater than 15:1.
- A "walk-through passageway" defined at least in part by, and extending through, the inflated infrastructure.
- The infrastructure includes inflatable walls that define "rooms representing chambers of the heart" and the passageway.
- An "outside surface shaped and contoured to represent at least portions of the outside of a human heart," which extends over the rooms and includes 3D forms representing physical features.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶72).
U.S. Patent No. 10,339,835 - "Inflatable Exhibit of a Human Heart and Method," Issued July 2, 2019
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, also in the same family, describes a large-scale (greater than 10:1) inflatable heart exhibit. The claims focus on the combination of an infrastructure that has both an outside surface modeling the exterior of the heart and an inside surface modeling the interior, with the inside surface including 3D forms for features like heart chambers ('835 Patent, col. 15:40-54). The structure is inflatable and includes an opening for visitor access.
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least representative Claim 1 (Compl. ¶42, 51).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's "AHS Heart Exhibit" infringes by being a large-scale, inflatable structure with an outer surface, an inner surface with 3D forms representing chambers, and an opening for entry (Compl. ¶45-48).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are large-scale, inflatable, walk-through models of the human heart, collectively referred to as the "AHS Heart Exhibit" and individually as "Infringing Models 1-4" (Compl. ¶22, 30, 38, 39, 81).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these exhibits are inflated at public events for educational and promotional purposes (Compl. ¶29, 32). They are described as being large enough for multiple people to enter and walk through spaces representing heart chambers (Compl. ¶23-24). The complaint provides visual evidence, such as Image 2, which shows an AHS exhibit at an event for fourth graders at a hospital (Compl. ¶25, Image 2). Image 3 depicts the exhibit at a "Community Health" event, suggesting its use in marketing and community engagement (Compl. ¶25, Image 3). The exhibits are alleged to be used to promote Atlantic Health System's healthcare services (Compl. ¶32).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 8,727,786 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an inflatable infrastructure inflatable to a three-dimensional partial representation of the human heart at a scale greater than at least, 15:1... | The accused "Infringing Model 4" is an inflatable structure representing a human heart at a scale greater than 15:1. | ¶85 | col. 2:50-54 |
| ...the infrastructure including a cross-sectional plane thereacross... | The accused model includes a "cross-sectional plane that defines a plane of a passageway." This is depicted in an annotated image of the exhibit's floor. | ¶86 | col. 11:35-37 |
| a walk-through passageway defined, at least in part, by the inflated infrastructure, and extending through the inflated infrastructure, wherein the cross-sectional plane defines a plane of the passageway | The accused model has a walk-through passageway defined by the inflated structure, as shown in multiple annotated images from a video of the exhibit. | ¶86 | col. 11:37-43 |
| ...the inflated infrastructure provides a physical representation of a human heart including inflatable internal walls extending upwardly from the cross-sectional plane and providing chambers of the human heart and the walk-through passageway as a single-story passageway therethrough | The accused model has inflatable internal walls that extend upwardly to form chambers and a single-story passageway. Image 14 is an annotated still from a video showing an internal inflatable wall. | ¶87 | col. 11:43-50 |
| and a physical representation of a human heart valve within said inflatable infrastructure. | The accused model includes a physical representation of a heart valve. Image 13 is an annotated still from a video pointing to a feature labeled "Right Atrium," which is cited to show a valve representation. | ¶88 | col. 12:3-5 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be the construction of "cross-sectional plane." The patent describes this as a horizontal base or mat from which the structure rises ('786 Patent, col. 2:40-43), while the complaint points to the floor of the passageway (Compl. ¶86, Image 14). The court will have to determine if a simple floor of an inflatable structure, without being a distinct base element, meets this limitation.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the presence of a "human heart valve" and points to an annotated image showing a sign for the "Right Atrium" (Compl. ¶88, Image 13). A question for the court will be whether the evidence presented demonstrates a "physical representation of a human heart valve" as required by the claim, or merely a label in the general vicinity of where a valve would be.
U.S. Patent No. 9,564,067 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An inflatable infrastructure inflatable to a three-dimensional representation of the human heart at a scale greater than 15:1 | The accused "Infringing Model 3" is an inflatable exhibit of a human heart at a scale greater than 15:1. Image 8 is an annotated photograph of the large, inflated exhibit. | ¶64 | col. 11:51-54 |
| a walk-through passageway defined, at least in part, by the inflated infrastructure, and extending through the inflated infrastructure | The accused model includes a walk-through passageway. Image 9 is an annotated photo from inside the passageway. | ¶65 | col. 11:55-58 |
| wherein the infrastructure includes inflatable walls that are inflatable to define rooms representing chambers of the heart and the walk-through passageway | The accused model includes inflatable walls that define rooms representing heart chambers and the passageway. Image 9 shows people inside one such "room." | ¶66 | col. 11:59-62 |
| an outside surface shaped and contoured to represent at least portions of the outside of a human heart... the outside surface including three-dimensional forms representing physical features of the heart. | The accused model has an outside surface shaped to represent portions of a heart, including 3D forms for physical features. Image 8 is an annotated photo showing the exterior shape. | ¶67 | col. 12:1-7 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The interpretation of "rooms representing chambers of the heart" will be critical. Does this require anatomically distinct and recognizable chambers, or can it be read more broadly to cover any partitioned spaces within the inflatable? The complaint's evidence shows internal spaces, but the degree to which they "represent" chambers may be disputed.
- Technical Questions: The limitation "outside surface shaped and contoured to represent" the heart raises a question of the required degree of similarity. The court will need to determine whether the general shape of the accused product is sufficient to meet this limitation, which may be a subjective factual inquiry.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "cross-sectional plane" ('786 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term appears foundational to the structure of the '786 patent's invention, distinguishing it from prior art. Its construction will determine whether the floor of the accused product can be considered an infringing element.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language states the plane "defines a plane of the passageway," which could be argued to cover any floor surface upon which one walks ('786 Patent, col. 15:38-39, Reexam Cert.).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the "cross-sectional plane" in an embodiment as being provided by a "generally horizontal base (e.g., a mat) of the inflatable infrastructure" from which "inflatable internal walls extend[] upwardly" ('786 Patent, col. 2:40-47). This may suggest the plane is a distinct foundational component, not merely the bottom surface of the inflatable walls themselves.
The Term: "rooms representing chambers of the heart" ('067 Patent, Claim 7)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the required internal configuration of the exhibit. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused product's internal partitions qualify as "rooms" that "represent" anatomical chambers.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "rooms," which could be argued to mean any separated internal space, without requiring strict anatomical accuracy. The patent itself notes that the invention may use "selective simplifications of the heart anatomy" ('067 Patent, col. 4:11-12).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to representations of the "right atrium, right ventricle, and the left ventricle" ('067 Patent, col. 2:56-58). The figures, such as Fig. 2, show a layout that tracks the anatomical chambers. This could support an interpretation requiring spaces that are identifiably correlated to actual heart chambers.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that AHS induced infringement by "instructing, directing, permitting and/or requiring others, including its customers, purchasers, partners, agents, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and guests to use" the accused models in the promotion of events (Compl. ¶53, 73, 95).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that AHS leased Plaintiff's own "MEGA Heart Exhibit" before acquiring and using the accused models (Compl. ¶33). Crucially, it alleges that Plaintiff sent a letter to AHS on June 8, 2010, providing notice of the pending patent application that would issue as the '786 patent, and another letter on January 26, 2021, providing notice of the issued patents (Compl. ¶36).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and structural definition: Can the term "cross-sectional plane" in the '786 patent, described in the specification as a "base (e.g., a mat)," be construed to read on the integrated floor of the accused inflatable exhibit? Similarly, does the accused product's internal layout constitute "rooms representing chambers of the heart" as required by the '067 patent?
- A second central question will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Does the photographic and video evidence cited in the complaint, including annotated images, provide sufficient factual support to show that the accused products contain each specific element, such as a "physical representation of a human heart valve," or an "outside surface shaped and contoured to represent" a heart?
- Finally, the allegation of willfulness will be a major focus. Given the specific allegations of pre-suit notice dating back to 2010 and the claim that Defendant first leased Plaintiff's product, a key question for the court will be whether Defendant's continued use of the accused exhibits after such notice constituted objectively reckless behavior.