DCT
2:22-cv-06885
Cutchins v. Bug Bite Thing Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Linwood Cutchins (New Jersey)
- Defendant: Bug Bite Thing, Inc. (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Linwood Cutchins (Pro Se)
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-06885, D.N.J., 11/28/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant "conducts business in the State of New Jersey."
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s “Bug Bite Thing suction tool” infringes a patent related to a suction apparatus for removing debris from an organ.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves portable, manually operated suction devices designed to remove foreign debris from sensitive areas of the body without the use of liquids.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff placed Defendant on notice of the alleged infringement prior to filing the lawsuit, and that Defendant continued its accused activities thereafter.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-09-18 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,399,979 |
| 2022-08-02 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,399,979 |
| 2022-11-28 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,399,979 - “Apparatus for Removing Debris from an Organ”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the problem of small debris becoming trapped in an organ, such as an eye, which can be "difficult to dislodge with fingers or larger instruments" using traditional techniques (’979 Patent, col. 2:9-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable suction device intended to solve this problem by physically pulling debris from a sensitive organ "without the use of a liquid" (’979 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:47-49). As described, the apparatus comprises a vacuum portion to generate suction, a tube to carry the debris, and an "organ engagement portion," such as an eye cup, to create a seal against the body (’979 Patent, col. 4:51-66). FIG. 2 illustrates an embodiment where the device engages an eyeball to remove debris (’979 Patent, FIG. 2).
- Technical Importance: The described invention provides a portable, power-independent, and waterless method for self-administered removal of debris from sensitive organs, intended to maintain hygiene without requiring physician assistance (’979 Patent, col. 5:27-31).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’979 Patent are asserted. The two independent claims are Claim 1 and Claim 14.
- Independent Claim 1:
- A portable vacuum portion configured for sucking "eye debris," which comprises a manual hand pump, a diaphragm, antibacterial or silicone material, and a debris storage portion.
- A tube implement extending from the vacuum portion, comprising a transparent tube made of plastic, polyurethane, or woven fiber.
- An organ engagement portion at the tube's distal end, which comprises an "eye cup."
- Independent Claim 14:
- An apparatus "consisting of" several components, including a pocket-sized vacuum portion for sucking "eye debris" (with an internal diaphragm, manual hand pump, and debris storage), a flexible and transparent tube implement, an "eye engagement portion" in an "eye cup shape" with an antimicrobial solution, and a rim portion for sealing.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Bug Bite Thing suction tool" (Compl. ¶6).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused product "uses suction to remove debris from insect bites from a person's body" (Compl. ¶10).
- No further technical details regarding the structure or operation of the accused product are provided in the complaint. The product's context is consumer use for insect bites.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused product uses an "identical process" to the patented invention but does not provide a detailed mapping of claim elements to specific features of the accused product (Compl. ¶6, ¶10). The following chart summarizes the infringement theory as can be inferred from the complaint’s general allegations against the elements of Claim 1.
’979 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A portable vacuum portion... being configured to be operable for generating the vacuum force for sucking or suctioning eye debris... | The accused "suction tool" that "uses suction to remove debris from insect bites from a person's body." | ¶6, ¶10 | col. 9:5-9 |
| in which said portable vacuum portion comprises: a manual hand pump... a diaphragm implement... a debris storage portion... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of these structural elements. | N/A | col. 9:10-20 |
| a tube implement extending a distance from said vacuum portion... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | N/A | col. 9:21-26 |
| an organ engagement portion that is configured to be into engagement with a distal end of said transparent tube implement, said organ engagement portion comprises: an eye cup... | The complaint describes the accused device as a "suction tool" but provides no detail regarding its specific structure or engagement portion. | ¶6, ¶10 | col. 9:32-38 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary question for the court will be whether claims explicitly directed to "eye debris" and requiring an "eye cup" can be read to cover a device used to treat "insect bites" on the skin. The complaint asserts the patent covers organs including the "skin," but the independent claims appear narrower (Compl. ¶5; ’979 Patent, col. 9:9, 9:36). This raises the question of whether the accused product's use falls within the scope of the asserted claims.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegation of an "identical process" lacks specific factual support detailing the structure of the accused device (Compl. ¶6). What evidence the complaint provides that the accused "Bug Bite Thing" contains the specific combination of a "manual hand pump," a "diaphragm," and a structure that meets the definition of an "eye cup" as required by the claims is an open question.
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "eye debris" (recited in Claim 1 and Claim 14)
- Context and Importance: The construction of this term is central, as the accused product is alleged to remove "debris from insect bites," not from an eye (Compl. ¶10). The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether matter extracted from an insect bite (e.g., irritants, saliva) can be defined as "eye debris."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's title, “Apparatus for Removing Debris from an Organ,” is general (’979 Patent, Title). The specification also lists several exemplary organs, including "an eye, a nose, an ear, a mouth, a liver" (’979 Patent, col. 6:18-20). A party might argue this broader context informs the meaning of debris associated with such organs.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Both independent claims explicitly use the limiting term "eye debris" (’979 Patent, col. 9:9; col. 10:24). The specification's primary embodiment and figures are directed to use on an eye, and it discusses debris as "dust, paint chips, sand grains, insects, and any foreign object that becomes trapped in the eye" (’979 Patent, FIG. 2; col. 5:11-14).
The Term: "eye cup" (recited in Claim 1 and Claim 14)
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused product is for use on skin, making it less likely to incorporate a structure conventionally known as an "eye cup." The infringement analysis will question whether the suction tip of the accused product meets this claim limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "eye cup" should be construed functionally as any cup-shaped structure that engages an organ to create a vacuum seal, pointing to the more general term "organ engagement portion" used in the specification (’979 Patent, col. 4:63).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims explicitly require an "eye cup" or an "eye cup shape," not a generic "organ engagement portion" (’979 Patent, col. 9:36; col. 10:41). The figures and description suggest a structure specifically adapted to "engage a periphery of an eye" (’979 Patent, col. 5:21-22; FIG. 2).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a single count for "Patent Infringement Under 35 U.S.C. §271" and does not plead separate counts for induced or contributory infringement (Compl. p. 2). However, it does allege facts related to knowledge, stating that Defendant "knowingly has been selling a product" and was "placed on notice regarding infringement" (Compl. ¶7, ¶10-11).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided pre-suit notice of infringement and that Defendant "has continued to sell the infringing product" thereafter (Compl. ¶7, ¶11). These allegations may form the basis for a future claim of willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim scope: can claims explicitly reciting the removal of "eye debris" using an "eye cup" be construed to cover an apparatus designed to apply suction to "insect bites" on the skin?
- A key procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint’s general allegation of an "identical process," without mapping specific claim limitations to features of the accused product, satisfy the plausibility standard for patent infringement claims established by federal court precedent?