Cutchins v. Lowe's Companies Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Linwood Cutchings (New Jersey)
  • Defendant: Lowe's Companies, Inc. (North Carolina)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Linwood Cutchings, pro se
• Case Identification: 3:23-cv-00355, D.N.J., 01/19/2023
• Venue Allegations: The complaint does not contain explicit allegations establishing venue in the District of New Jersey. It identifies the Defendant’s corporate address in Mooresville, North Carolina.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified "products" sold by Defendant infringe a patent related to a medical apparatus for removing debris from an organ.
• Technical Context: The patent-in-suit describes a portable, handheld suction device designed to remove foreign material from sensitive organs, with a specific focus on the eye.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed pro se. No prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-09-18	'979 Patent Priority Date
2022-08-02	'979 Patent Issue Date
2023-01-19	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.

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the problem of small debris getting trapped in an organ, such as the eye, which can be difficult and unsafe to remove with fingers or conventional instruments (’979 Patent, col. 2:8-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable apparatus that generates a vacuum force to suck debris from the organ (’979 Patent, Abstract). As illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, it consists of a handheld vacuum portion (102), a tube (104) to transport the debris, and an “organ engagement portion” (106), such as an eye cup, that creates a seal against the organ’s surface. The system is designed to remove debris without the use of liquids (’979 Patent, col. 4:46-50).
• Technical Importance: The device is described as enabling daily, power-independent use to maintain "optical hygiene and health" without requiring a physician's assistance (’979 Patent, col. 5:28-31).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted. Independent claim 1 is the broadest independent claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A portable vacuum portion configured for generating a vacuum force for suctioning eye debris, which comprises a manual hand pump, a diaphragm, specific materials, and a debris storage portion.
  • A tube implement extending from the vacuum portion for carrying the eye debris, which comprises a transparent tube made of specific materials.
  • An organ engagement portion at the distal end of the tube, which comprises an eye cup configured for the removal of eye debris using the vacuum force.
• The complaint does not reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify a specific accused product or service. It makes a general allegation against "products" sold by Lowe's Companies, Inc. (Compl., p. 3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no description of the technical functionality, features, or market context of any accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint makes a general allegation of infringement but does not provide a claim chart or any specific factual allegations mapping features of an accused product to the elements of the asserted patent claims. Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: As no product is identified, a threshold question is what product, if any, sold by a home improvement retailer like Lowe's could perform the functions of the claimed medical device. The complaint does not provide evidence that any product sold by Defendant is capable of generating a vacuum through a tube to an "eye cup" for the purpose of removing "eye debris" as required by the claims (’979 Patent, Claim 1).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Because the complaint fails to identify an accused product, any analysis of claim construction is predictive. However, given the nature of the patent and the defendant, the following terms would likely be central to a dispute.

"organ engagement portion"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the interface between the device and the user's body. Its construction is critical to determining if a general-purpose nozzle on a consumer product could infringe claims directed to a medical apparatus. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's embodiments heavily feature a specialized "eye cup" (’979 Patent, Claim 1), suggesting a specific medical application not obviously present in products sold by a home improvement store.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification mentions that the organ could be "an eye, a nose, an ear, a mouth, a liver, and an ear," which might support an argument that the term is not limited to the ophthalmic context (’979 Patent, col. 6:17-18).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Independent claim 1 explicitly requires the "organ engagement portion" to comprise "an eye cup" configured for removal of "eye debris" (’979 Patent, col. 9:8-12, 35-39). The abstract and detailed description similarly focus on the device's application to the eye (’979 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:43-46).

"portable vacuum portion"

• Context and Importance: The definition of "portable" will be key to distinguishing the claimed invention from other types of vacuum devices. If an accused product were a small workshop or car vacuum, its size, power source, and intended use would be compared to the device described in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the device as one that "may be carried and use daily" (’979 Patent, col. 4:49-50), suggesting a general functional definition of portability rather than a strict size or weight limit.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Narrower independent claim 14 specifies that the vacuum portion is "further configured to fit within a pocket" (’979 Patent, col. 10:30-31). A party could argue this embodiment informs the meaning of "portable" throughout the patent, suggesting a handheld, pocket-sized device.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not contain factual allegations to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge or other specific facts that would support a claim for willful infringement.

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

• A dispositive threshold issue is the failure to state a claim: the complaint does not identify an accused product or provide any factual basis for its infringement allegation, raising the question of whether it can survive a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6).
• Should the case proceed, a central issue will be one of technological domain: can claims for a specialized medical device, which recite features like an "eye cup" for removing "eye debris," be construed to cover general-purpose consumer or commercial products sold by a home improvement retailer?
• The case will also present a key question of claim scope: is the term "organ engagement portion" limited by the specification's focus and claim 1's explicit recitation of an "eye cup," or can it be interpreted more broadly to read on a generic nozzle of a vacuum device not intended for medical use?