DCT

1:22-cv-07924

Medical Depot Inc v. Linak As

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-07924, E.D.N.Y., 12/28/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of New York because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the district and because a substantial part of the events, including correspondence from Defendants to Plaintiff alleging infringement, occurred in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its hospital beds, which incorporate third-party linear actuators, do not infringe Defendant's patent related to linear actuators with a manual operation feature, and that the patent-in-suit is invalid.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves electric linear actuators used in adjustable medical beds, which provide for motorized movement but also incorporate a mechanical backup for manual operation via a hand crank in case of power failure.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of pre-suit communications following Plaintiff’s decision to switch from Defendant’s motors to a third-party supplier. The patent-in-suit underwent an ex parte reexamination, which confirmed the patentability of several original claims and added new claims. Plaintiff alleges that the reexamination was flawed because the examiner did not consider the original prosecution history, and that Defendant failed to disclose this history during the proceeding.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-08-20 '020 Patent Priority Date
2003-08-20 '020 Patent PCT Application Filed
2008-12-30 '020 Patent Issued
2016-12-30 Ex Parte Reexamination of '020 Patent Filed
2017-11-07 Reexamination Certificate for '020 Patent Issued
2021-04-27 First alleged infringement threat from Linak to Drive Medical
2022-05-24 Linak allegedly sent a claim chart to Drive Medical
2022-12-28 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,471,020, "Linear Actuator," issued December 30, 2008

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a simple and inexpensive manual override for electric actuators used in hospital and domestic beds ('020 Patent, col. 1:20-35). Prior art solutions for manual operation in case of power failure were described as being structurally complex, bulky, or difficult to use, sometimes requiring tools or the removal of components ('020 Patent, col. 1:52-65).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a linear actuator with a rear attachment having a longitudinal opening, allowing a hand crank to engage the actuator's spindle for manual operation ('020 Patent, col. 2:7-11). To facilitate this, a "shaft member" is positioned in the opening. This shaft member is connected to the spindle and configured to receive the hand crank, which avoids the need to insert the crank deep into the actuator's body ('020 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:12-18). The patent describes that this shaft member can be a separate element mounted in the rear attachment, which simplifies assembly ('020 Patent, col. 2:22-25).
  • Technical Importance: The design offers a direct and accessible method for manual operation, which is a critical safety and convenience feature for medical beds, without fundamentally altering the actuator's core structure or significantly increasing its manufacturing cost ('020 Patent, col. 2:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint focuses on independent claims 1 and 9.
  • Independent Claim 1 recites, among other elements:
    • a spindle operatively connected with the reduction gear;
    • a rear attachment having a longitudinal opening in the longitudinal axis of the spindle; and
    • a shaft member provided in the opening as a separate element, said shaft member being connected at one end thereof with one end of the spindle and configured at its other end for operative reception of the end of a hand crank.
  • Independent Claim 9 recites, among other elements:
    • a separate rear attachment mounted at the end of the cabinet with a first seal;
    • the rear attachment having a longitudinal opening; and
    • a shaft member provided in the opening for engagement of a hand crank, said shaft member including a second seal.
  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity as to all claims of the '020 Patent (Compl. ¶1).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Drive Medical's hospital beds, specifically the "Delta® Pro Homecare Bed System," which incorporate the "Dewert Megamat MLZ linear actuator" (Compl. ¶¶15, 22, 23).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Dewert motor is a linear actuator used to raise and lower sections of Drive Medical's hospital beds (Compl. ¶15).
  • The central technical allegation in the complaint is that the Dewert motor's driving element is a "monolithically-formed drive screw," meaning it is a single, unitary component, rather than a combination of a separate spindle and a separate shaft member (Compl. ¶¶38, 47, 50).
  • The complaint frames the dispute as arising from a commercial conflict; Drive Medical was a customer of Linak before switching to the allegedly less expensive Dewert motors, which prompted Linak to allege infringement (Compl. ¶¶18, 21, 23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. Its core arguments are summarized below in the context of claim 1.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'020 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a spindle operatively connected with the reduction gear The Dewert motor utilizes a single, "monolithically-formed drive screw" as its driving element. ¶¶47, 59 col. 5:25-27
a shaft member provided in the opening as a separate element The Dewert motor's monolithic drive screw allegedly lacks a "shaft member as a separate element." ¶¶50, 59 col. 5:63-65
said shaft member being connected at one end thereof with one end of the spindle It is alleged that because the drive screw is a single piece, it does not have separate "ends" of a spindle and a shaft member that are "connected" to each other. ¶50 col. 5:65-col. 6:1
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary dispute revolves around whether the claim phrase "a shaft member...as a separate element...connected...with one end of the spindle" can be construed to read on a single, "monolithically-formed" drive screw. This raises the question of whether "separate element" requires two physically distinct components or could describe functionally distinct portions of a single piece.
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question for the court will be the precise physical construction of the Dewert motor. The case may turn on evidence establishing whether its drive mechanism is truly a unitary component or if it is constructed from multiple pieces joined together in a way that could meet the claim limitations.
    • Prosecution History Estoppel: The complaint alleges that the "separate element" limitation was added during prosecution to overcome prior art (Compl. ¶¶36-37). This suggests that prosecution history estoppel may be a significant issue, potentially limiting the scope of the claims and preventing them from covering subject matter that was surrendered during prosecution.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a shaft member provided in the opening as a separate element"
    • Context and Importance: This term is central to Drive Medical's non-infringement argument. The interpretation of "separate element" will likely determine whether the Dewert motor's alleged monolithic construction falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges it was added to the claims to achieve allowance over prior art (Compl. ¶¶36, 44).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the "shaft member can be formed by an extension of the spindle" ('020 Patent, col. 2:19-21). A party could argue this suggests that "separate" might refer to a functionally distinct portion, even if part of a single manufactured piece.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the explicit words "separate element." The specification also provides an alternative: "The shaft member can be a separate element mounted in the rear attachment" ('020 Patent, col. 2:22-23). The complaint argues that this language was added specifically to distinguish over prior art, implying a deliberate narrowing of scope (Compl. ¶37). The subsequent requirement that the shaft member is "connected" to the spindle further supports the interpretation of two distinct items being joined ('020 Patent, col. 6:0-1).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Invalidity: The complaint includes a count for declaratory judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness) (Compl. ¶65). The core theory is that the claims are obvious in view of the combined prior art from the original prosecution and the subsequent ex parte reexamination (Compl. ¶67). It is alleged that the reexamination examiner erred by failing to consider the original prosecution history and the primary prior art reference from that examination (Lafferty) (Compl. ¶68).
  • Exceptional Case Allegations: The complaint alleges that Linak was aware of its own prosecution history and the Lafferty reference but "failed to uphold its duty of disclosure during Reexamination" (Compl. ¶43). It further alleges that Linak took positions during reexamination that contradicted its earlier arguments (Compl. ¶69). These allegations form the basis for the request that the court declare the case "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would permit an award of attorneys' fees (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶D).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction and estoppel: Can the claim limitation "a shaft member...as a separate element," which Plaintiff alleges was added to secure the patent, be interpreted to cover the accused "monolithically-formed" drive screw? The answer will likely depend on the court's analysis of the prosecution history and the potential application of prosecution history estoppel.
  • A key question for validity will be the propriety of the reexamination: The court will be asked to determine whether the patent claims are obvious when considering the full scope of prior art from both the original and reexamination proceedings. This analysis may also involve evaluating whether the patentee's alleged failure to disclose the original prosecution history to the reexamination examiner constitutes inequitable conduct or otherwise supports a finding that this is an exceptional case.
  • A central evidentiary question will be one of physical structure: Does discovery and technical evidence reveal the accused Dewert motor to be a single, unitary component as alleged, or does it possess distinct parts or features that could be fairly characterized as a "spindle" "connected" to a "separate" "shaft member" under a plausible claim construction?