DCT
2:22-cv-06885
Cutchins v. Bug Bite Thing Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Linwood Cutchins (New Jersey)
- Defendant: Bug Bite Thing, Inc. (Florida); Lori Greiner (Illinois); Dr. Mona Amin (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-06885, D.N.J., 12/22/2022
- Venue Allegations: The complaint does not contain explicit venue allegations, but lists a corporate defendant address in Florida, individual defendant addresses in Florida and Illinois, and the plaintiff’s address in New Jersey.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s suction tool for insect bites infringes a patent related to a suction apparatus for removing debris from an organ, such as an eye.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns small, manually-operated, portable suction devices designed for application to the human body for therapeutic or hygienic purposes.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is a pro se filing and does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-09-18 | '979 Patent Priority Date |
| 2017-01-01 | Accused "Bug Bite Thing" Product Launch Date |
| 2022-08-02 | '979 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-12-22 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,399,979, “APPARATUS FOR REMOVING DEBRIS FROM AN ORGAN,” issued August 2, 2022.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of small debris getting trapped in a sensitive organ, such as the eye, which is often “difficult to dislodge with fingers or larger instruments” (’979 Patent, col. 2:10-12).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable suction apparatus designed to solve this problem without using liquids. It comprises a vacuum portion to generate suction, a tube to carry the debris, and a specialized “organ engagement portion,” such as an “eye cup,” that forms a seal against the organ’s surface to pull the debris out (’979 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:40-50). The device is intended to be simple enough for daily, self-administered use to maintain hygiene (’979 Patent, col. 5:26-31).
- Technical Importance: The described invention offers a mechanical, non-liquid-based method for individuals to remove foreign particulate matter from sensitive body parts like the eye (’979 Patent, col. 5:25-29).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims. Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention’s core features.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A portable vacuum portion for generating a vacuum force to suck “eye debris,” which itself comprises a manual hand pump, a diaphragm, a debris storage portion, and is made of an antibacterial polymer or silicone material.
- A “tube implement” extending from the vacuum portion to carry the debris, which is transparent and made of plastic, polyurethane, or woven fiber.
- An “organ engagement portion” at the distal end of the tube, which comprises an “eye cup” for the removal of eye debris.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: While not explicitly named in the "Statement of Claim," the naming of "Bug Bite Thing, Inc." as the lead defendant indicates the accused instrumentality is the "Bug Bite Thing" product (Compl. p. 2).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not describe the accused product. Publicly available information describes the "Bug Bite Thing" as a manually-operated suction tool designed to be placed over an insect bite on the skin. A user pulls a plunger to create a vacuum, which is intended to extract insect saliva or venom from underneath the skin’s surface. The complaint alleges the defendant corporation is located in Port Saint Lucie, Florida (Compl. p. 2).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint makes a general allegation of “Patent Infringement” without providing a claim chart or detailing a specific infringement theory (Compl. p. 3). The following table presents a hypothetical mapping of the elements of claim 1 of the ’979 Patent to the likely features of the accused “Bug Bite Thing” product to frame the potential dispute.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'979 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A portable vacuum portion, said portable vacuum portion being configured to be operable for generating the vacuum force for sucking or suctioning eye debris... | The main body of the Bug Bite Thing tool, which contains a plunger mechanism to create suction. | p. 3 | col. 9:7-9 |
| ...in which said portable vacuum portion comprises: a manual hand pump... a diaphragm implement... a debris storage portion... | The plunger handles function as a manual pump; the internal chamber created by the plunger may be alleged to be a diaphragm and/or a debris storage portion. | p. 3 | col. 9:10-18 |
| a tube implement extending a distance from said vacuum portion, said tube implement being configured to be operable for carrying the eye debris to said debris storage portion for storage therein... | The suction tip of the accused product, which provides a conduit for the vacuum force. | p. 3 | col. 9:19-23 |
| ...in which said tube implement comprises: a transparent tube implement... | The suction tip of the accused product, which is typically made of transparent plastic. | p. 3 | col. 9:25-29 |
| 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, said eye cup being configured to be operable for removal of the eye debris with said vacuum force. | The open, reversible end of the suction tip that is placed against the skin over an insect bite. | p. 3 | col. 9:33-39 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary dispute may arise over whether the term "organ" as used in the patent, which focuses heavily on the “eye,” can be interpreted to read on human “skin,” where the accused product is used. Further, it raises the question of whether insect “venom” or “saliva,” which the accused product targets, constitutes “debris” as described in the patent (e.g., “dust, paint chips, sand grains”) (’979 Patent, col. 5:12-13).
- Technical Questions: A significant question is whether the accused product, which integrates the suction tip directly onto the main body, contains a separate “tube implement” as recited in the claim and depicted in the patent’s figures (’979 Patent, FIG. 1). Another point of contention will likely be whether the suction tip of the accused product, designed for use on skin, can be considered an “eye cup” as explicitly required by claim 1 (’979 Patent, col. 9:36).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific claim term disputes. However, based on a comparison of the ’979 Patent and the likely accused product, the following terms may be central to the case.
The Term: "eye debris"
Context and Importance: The infringement case may depend on whether this term can be construed broadly enough to cover insect venom/saliva extracted from skin, rather than solid particulates removed from the surface of an eye. Practitioners may focus on this term because claim 1 is explicitly limited to an apparatus for suctioning “eye debris.”
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the general term “debris” in the background, defining it as “any small object that floats in the air” (’979 Patent, col. 2:8), which could be argued to not foreclose non-solid matter.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides only examples of solid particulates, such as “dust, paint chips, sand grains, insects” (’979 Patent, col. 5:12-13). Furthermore, claim 1 itself narrows the general term “debris” to “eye debris,” and the associated structure is an “eye cup,” strongly suggesting the term is limited to foreign objects on the surface of an eye.
The Term: "tube implement"
Context and Importance: The accused product appears to be a single integrated unit with a suction tip, whereas the patent claims and figures describe a distinct "tube implement." The viability of the infringement allegation may hinge on whether the product’s integrated design can meet this limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the length or required degree of separation for the tube, stating only that it “extend[s] a distance from said vacuum portion” (’979 Patent, col. 9:19-20).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 recites the “portable vacuum portion,” the “tube implement,” and the “organ engagement portion” as three distinct elements of the apparatus. FIG. 1 clearly depicts the tube (104) as a separate component connecting the vacuum portion (102) and the engagement portion (106), suggesting it is not merely an integrated tip.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege any facts that would support a claim for indirect infringement, such as knowledge or inducement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willfulness or plead any facts related to pre-suit or post-suit knowledge of infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the limitations "eye debris" and "eye cup," which are central to the asserted claim, be construed to cover insect venom being removed from the skin by the accused product, which is not designed for use on or near the eye?
- A second key issue will be structural interpretation: does the accused product’s integrated suction tip satisfy the "tube implement" limitation of claim 1, which the patent’s text and figures present as a structurally distinct component connecting the vacuum source and the end-point applicator?