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)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00424, D.N.J., 01/12/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant manufactures, markets, offers for sale, sells, and distributes the accused product throughout the United States, including through various retailers within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Bug Bite Thing" suction tool, designed for removing insect irritants from the skin, infringes a patent directed to a suction-based apparatus for removing debris from an organ, such as an eye.
• Technical Context: The dispute involves simple, hand-held, manually operated mechanical suction devices used for removing foreign matter from a body surface.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that a prior complaint was filed but dismissed without prejudice for failure to properly serve the defendant.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 11,399,979 - "Apparatus for Removing Debris from an Organ"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,399,979, "Apparatus for Removing Debris from an Organ," issued August 2, 2022 (’979 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the difficulty of removing small debris that can become trapped inside an organ, such as an eye, noting that traditional methods like using fingers or larger instruments are often ineffective. (’979 Patent, col. 2:8-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable apparatus that uses manually generated suction to remove debris from a sensitive organ without using liquid. It consists of a vacuum portion (e.g., a squeezable bulb) to generate force, a tube to carry the debris, and an "organ engagement portion" (e.g., a cup) to form a seal against the body and extract the debris into a storage chamber. (’979 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:41-50; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The described solution provides a non-powered, portable, and waterless method for individuals to maintain optical hygiene and remove irritants from sensitive organs. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 5).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶26). The patent contains two independent claims, Claim 1 and Claim 14.

• Independent Claim 1:

  • An apparatus comprising: a portable vacuum portion (with a manual hand pump, a diaphragm, antibacterial/silicone material, and a debris storage portion);
  • a tube implement (transparent and made of plastic, polyurethane, or woven fiber) extending from the vacuum portion to carry eye debris; and
  • an organ engagement portion at the distal end of the tube, comprising an "eye cup," for removal of eye debris with the vacuum force.

• Independent Claim 14:

  • An apparatus consisting of: a vacuum portion (with an internal diaphragm and manual hand pump);
  • a flexible and transparent tube implement;
  • an "eye engagement portion" comprising an "eye cup shape" and an antimicrobial solution; and
  • a rim portion for removably sealing the eye engagement portion.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Bug Bite Thing suction tool" (Compl. ¶7).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused product as a hand-held, manual suction tool designed to remove insect saliva, venom, or other irritants from the skin (Compl. ¶7).
• The user places the device over an affected area of skin and pulls up on handles, which creates suction to extract the irritant (Compl. ¶7).
• The extracted material is collected in a removable cap/chamber for cleaning (Compl. ¶7). The complaint alleges the product is sold nationwide through major retailers such as Home Depot, Lowe's, CVS, and Walmart (Compl. ¶7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a formal claim chart. The allegations are based on functional and structural equivalence, primarily detailed in a comparative table. The following chart summarizes the infringement theory for the broader independent claim, Claim 1, based on the complaint's narrative and side-by-side comparison table. (Compl. ¶20).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’979 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The central dispute will likely concern the scope of key claim terms. A primary question is whether the claimed "organ engagement portion" comprising an "eye cup" for removing "eye debris" can read on a device with a general-purpose opening for removing insect venom from the skin. The complaint argues that the skin is an "analogous body surface" and the difference in application site is "legally immaterial." (Compl. ¶¶ 9-10).
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused product operates on an "identical suction principle" (Compl. ¶7). However, the patent claim requires specific structures, such as "a diaphragm implement that is operable to expand to reduce a pressure," whereas the accused product is described as using handles the user "pulls up on" to create suction (Compl. ¶7). The case may require factual development to determine if the accused product's mechanism meets the claimed structural limitations, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "organ engagement portion...comprises: an eye cup" (Claim 1); "eye engagement portion...comprises an eye cup shape" (Claim 14)

• Context and Importance: This term appears to be the most significant point of dispute. The plaintiff’s infringement theory depends on this term being construed broadly enough, or found equivalent to, a device tip designed for application to the skin. Practitioners may focus on this term because the explicit recitation of "eye cup" presents a substantial challenge to a literal infringement theory against a product not used on the eye.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent title and abstract refer more broadly to removing debris from "an organ." ( ’979 Patent, Title; Abstract). The specification also lists other organs beyond the eye, such as "a nose, an ear, a mouth, a liver," which could be used to argue the invention was not intended to be limited solely to the eye. ( ’979 Patent, col. 6:17-19).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The independent claims explicitly require an "eye cup" or "eye cup shape." ( ’979 Patent, col. 9:36; col. 10:49). The detailed description repeatedly uses the eye as the primary and detailed embodiment, and figures show the device engaging an eye. ( ’979 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 5:11). This focus on the eye provides strong evidence that the claims are limited to an ophthalmic application.

The Term: "eye debris" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement claim also depends on whether "insect saliva, venom, or other irritants from the skin" (Compl. ¶7) can be considered "eye debris."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-limiting list of debris: "dust, paint chips, sand grains, insects, and any foreign object." (’979 Patent, col. 5:12-14). Plaintiff may argue this list is merely exemplary and that "insect saliva/venom" is a type of "foreign object" or irritant consistent with the invention's purpose.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term itself contains the "eye" limitation. The context provided by the specification is consistently about solid or particulate matter becoming trapped in the eye, which is functionally different from liquid or semi-liquid irritants injected into the skin.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement. However, the factual allegations describe infringement based on actions taken by the end-user (e.g., "the user places the device over the affected area, pulls up on handles...") which could potentially support a future claim for induced infringement. (Compl. ¶7).

Willful Infringement

• Plaintiff alleges willful infringement, asserting that Defendant "knew or should have known of Plaintiff's patented technology" (Compl. ¶28) and that Plaintiff "placed the Defendant on notice regarding continuous infringement," citing an exhibit not attached to the publicly filed complaint. (Compl. ¶21).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This case appears to present fundamental questions of claim scope and the application of the doctrine of equivalents. The outcome will likely depend on the court's resolution of the following issues:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the claim limitation "organ engagement portion...comprises: an eye cup," which is rooted in the patent's specific disclosure of an ophthalmic device, be construed to literally cover the skin-contact tip of the accused suction tool?
2. A second, related issue is one of materiality: Is the difference between removing "eye debris" (described as particulate matter) and removing insect venom from the skin an "insubstantial difference" for the purposes of the doctrine of equivalents, or does it reflect a fundamentally different function and result?
3. A dispositive question will be one of claim vitiation: Will a finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents effectively read the express "eye cup" limitation out of the claim, a result the doctrine is intended to prevent? The plaintiff's heavy reliance on equivalence (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 31) suggests this will be a central battleground.