DCT
2:23-cv-00463
Prestan Products LLC v. Innosonian America LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Prestan Products LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Innosonian America, LLC (New Jersey) and Innosonian, Inc. (South Korea)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Saul Ewing LLP
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00463, D.N.J., 01/26/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Innosonian America, LLC being a New Jersey limited liability company and both defendants allegedly committing acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Brayden" CPR training manikin infringes a patent related to CPR training devices that provide real-time visual feedback on compression rate.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training manikins equipped with electronic feedback systems to help trainees learn and practice the correct compression rate.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff notified Defendants of the alleged infringement on or about January 7, 2020, and that Defendants were aware of the patent-in-suit even prior to this notice.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-09-01 | '293 Patent Priority Date |
| 2013-06-18 | '293 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-01-07 | Plaintiff allegedly sent notice of infringement to Defendants |
| 2023-01-26 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,465,293 - Medical Training Device
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes a need for medical training manikins that are inexpensive, lightweight, portable, sanitary, and capable of "substantially simulating the functions and responses of a human patient" ('293 Patent, col. 1:10-21).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a CPR manikin featuring an "electro-mechanical indicator device" that provides "real time feedback of the CPR compression rate" to a trainee ('293 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:33-38). This is achieved through a system of sensors and visual indicators, such as colored LEDs, housed within a two-part, clam-shell style torso that has a compressible core and a pliable outer skin ('293 Patent, col. 5:22-41). The feedback allows trainees to see their performance and make adjustments during the training exercise.
- Technical Importance: The patent suggests that providing passive, real-time visual feedback is superior to prior art methods that required trainees to match an audible metronome or that only allowed for performance review after the training exercise was complete ('293 Patent, col. 6:1-15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 13 (Compl. ¶19).
- The essential elements of independent claim 13 are:
- A torso portion with an interconnected compressible core section and a removable pliable cover section.
- A CPR rate indicator that is integral with the torso and located under the cover section, for directly providing real-time feedback on the rate of CPR compressions.
- A portion of the removable pliable cover section adjacent to the indicator is configured to allow a user to view the indicator through the cover.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but states infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶19).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Brayden" CPR training manikin (the "Infringing Manikins") (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Brayden manikin is a competitive product used for CPR training (Compl. ¶1).
- Its relevant functionality includes a CPR rate indicator that provides "real time feedback of CPR performance" (Compl. ¶24). This feedback is allegedly provided via "'blood circulation' indication lights" that illuminate when chest compressions are performed at a "fast speed (over 120 times per minute)" (Compl. ¶25). The complaint includes an annotated diagram of the accused product identifying a torso portion, a compressible core section, a cover section, and a CPR rate indicator (Compl. ¶22). The diagram, sourced from Plaintiff, depicts an exploded view of the accused manikin's torso (Compl. p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'293 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) a torso portion having a compressible core section and a removable pliable cover section, which core and cover sections are interconnected; | The accused manikin allegedly has a torso portion, a compressible core section, a removable pliable cover section, and a CPR rate indicator, as depicted in an annotated diagram. | ¶22 | col. 2:64-3:12 |
| b) a CPR rate indicator integral with the torso portion and under the removable pliable cover section for directly providing real time feed back to a person being trained on said device of the rate of CPR compressions being performed; and | The accused manikin's CPR rate indicator allegedly provides "real time feedback of CPR performance." This is supported by website marketing materials and instructions that describe "'blood circulation' indication lights" illuminating based on compression speed. | ¶24, ¶25 | col. 5:22-29; col. 6:8-15 |
| c) a portion of the removable pliable cover section adjacent the CPR rate indicator is configured to view the CPR rate indicator through the removable pliable cover section by the person being trained on the device. | A portion of the accused manikin's cover section is allegedly adjacent to the CPR rate indicator and configured to allow viewing of the indicator through it. The annotated diagram shows the indicator located beneath the chest "Cover Section." | ¶22, ¶23 | col. 5:37-41; col. 6:31-45 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether the term "removable pliable cover section", as used in the patent, reads on the accused product's structure. The patent describes a "clam shell style torso" with a hinge ('293 Patent, col. 2:55-56, col. 3:10-12), and the court may need to decide if the claim scope is limited to this hinged embodiment or if it can cover other ways a cover section might be considered "removable."
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused product provides feedback "of the rate of CPR compressions" (Compl. ¶20). However, the evidence cited alleges the lights illuminate for speeds "over 120 times per minute" (Compl. ¶25). This raises the question of whether an indicator that signals a single threshold has been met performs the same function as the claimed "rate indicator," which the patent describes as capable of conveying performance levels such as "poor," "fair," or "acceptable" ('293 Patent, col. 5:43-51).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "CPR rate indicator"
Context and Importance: This term defines the core feedback-providing element of the invention. Its construction will be critical in determining whether the accused product's lighting system, as described in the complaint, infringes claim 13.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Summary of the Invention describes the feature broadly as an "electro-mechanical indicator device...to show real time feedback of the CPR compression rate" ('293 Patent, col. 1:33-36). This language could support an interpretation covering any electronic system that provides feedback related to compression speed.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description discloses specific embodiments where the indicator uses multiple colored lights to convey different performance levels (e.g., "red 64a is poor...yellow 64b is fair...green 64c is acceptable") ('293 Patent, col. 5:43-51). A party could argue that "rate indicator" is limited to a system that provides such graduated feedback, rather than one that only signals if a single rate threshold is crossed.
The Term: "configured to view the CPR rate indicator through the removable pliable cover section"
Context and Importance: This limitation defines the physical relationship between the indicator and the manikin's "skin." Practitioners may focus on this term because the method of viewing—whether through a specific window or a generally translucent material—could be a point of dispute.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly states that viewing may be enabled "by a transparent or translucent skin or portion of the pliable skin 40" ('293 Patent, col. 6:33-35). This language may support a construction that does not require a discrete aperture.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes a more specific embodiment with a "window or opening 62...provided through the skin 40" ('293 Patent, col. 5:37-41, FIG. 1, 3). A party could argue that "configured to view" requires a structure specifically designed for viewing, such as this window, rather than merely using a material that happens to be translucent.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendants' "Instructions for Use" documentation directs and encourages users to operate the Brayden manikin in an infringing manner, for example, by performing compressions at a rate that activates the feedback lights (Compl. ¶25-26).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants’ purported knowledge of the '293 patent since at least January 7, 2020, due to a notice letter from the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶16, ¶26). It further alleges that Defendants had awareness of the patent even before that date (Compl. ¶17).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of functional scope: Does the accused manikin's lighting system, which the complaint alleges indicates when compressions exceed a certain speed, meet the claim requirement of providing "real time feed back...of the rate of CPR compressions"? The case may turn on whether this is construed to require graduated feedback reflecting different rate ranges, as described in the patent's preferred embodiment, or if a single-threshold indicator suffices.
- A second central question will concern claim construction: Can the term "removable pliable cover section" in the context of the patent's "clam shell" and "hinge" disclosure be construed to read on the structure of the accused Brayden manikin? The outcome will depend on whether the claim is interpreted as being limited to the specific hinged embodiment or if it covers a broader range of torso assemblies.
- Finally, if infringement is found, a key factual question will be one of intent: Did the Defendants have knowledge of the '293 Patent and their alleged infringement before the suit was filed, as the complaint alleges based on a 2020 notice letter, which would be central to the claim for willful infringement and potential enhanced damages.