Ottah v. Mta

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Chikezie Ottah (New York)
  • Defendant: MTA (Metropolitan Transportation Authority) (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
• Case Identification: 1:22-cv-10435, S.D.N.Y., 12/12/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is predicated on the defendant, MTA, having its principal place of business within the Southern District of New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that camera mounting systems installed in Defendant’s buses and vehicles infringe a patent directed to an adjustable and removable "Book Holder."
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves adjustable mounting devices designed for use in mobile environments, such as on vehicles or personal mobility aids.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint references Plaintiff’s prior litigation against other entities, such as National Grid and Verizon, citing claim construction arguments from those cases as relevant precedent. The complaint also alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the patent and potential infringement in 2021, prior to filing the lawsuit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-04-24	U.S. Patent No. 7,152,840 Priority Date
2006-12-26	U.S. Patent No. 7,152,840 Issued
2021	Plaintiff allegedly first notified MTA of patent
2022-12-12	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,152,840 - *"Book Holder"* (Issued Dec. 26, 2006)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a lack of suitable devices for holding books or other items in mobile environments. It notes that conventional book holders are primarily for indoor, stationary use and lack the "ease of application to a mobile vehicle such as a wheelchair or stroller" and do not accommodate "easy and quick" attachment and removal without tools (’840 Patent, col. 2:42-60; col. 2:54-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a removable holder assembly featuring an adjustable clasp for attachment to a structure (e.g., a bar on a stroller), a support arm, and a platform. ('840 Patent, Abstract). The arm is described as having telescoping, rotational, and pivotal adjustments, allowing the platform to be positioned in a desired orientation for the user ('840 Patent, col. 2:9-14; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The described technology aims to provide a versatile, mobile support for reading materials or other items, thereby increasing accessibility for individuals in transit or those with limited mobility ('840 Patent, col. 2:4-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶42).
• Claim 1 recites three primary components:
  • A "book support platform" with clamps for retaining a book.
  • A "clasp" with a "pair of resilient clip arms" for attaching to a structure.
  • An "arm" with a "telescoping arrangement" interconnecting the clasp and the platform, which is "pivotally attached" to the platform.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "camera holder" or "BookHolder" devices mounted inside Defendant's buses (Compl. ¶3, 21).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these devices are used to mount cameras that report information, such as occupancy and safety data, to a central command center (Compl. ¶19, 38). The complaint includes a photograph of the accused device mounted on a vertical pole inside an MTA bus, adjacent to an MTA logo, suggesting its use in public transit vehicles (Compl. ¶13). The complaint alleges the system includes a "sensor/camera interconnecting to network program to a display in the MTA central station" (Compl. ¶19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'840 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a book support platform... comprising a front surface, a rear surface and a plurality of clamps, the front surface adapted for supporting a book...	The camera itself, or the structure it is mounted on, is alleged to be the "book support platform," with the complaint arguing the surface is adapted for supporting a "COMPUTER or SENSOR" (Compl. ¶30). The complaint includes a photograph of this component (Compl. ¶29).	¶28-31	col. 2:60-64
a clasp comprising a clip head, a clip body, a pair of resilient arms, the clip arms adjustably mounted on the clip head and attach to the clip body...	The portion of the device that attaches to the bus structure is alleged to be the claimed clasp, described as an "ADJUSTABLE BRACKET SCREWED DOWN ON THE BUS FRONT STRUCTURE AND A SIDE RESILIENT CLIP/PIN" (Compl. ¶36). A photograph depicts this attachment point (Compl. ¶33).	¶33-36	col. 3:25-30
An arm comprising a first end and a second end and a telescoping arrangement... the second end pivotally attached to the book support platform...	The structure connecting the mounting clasp to the camera platform is alleged to be the claimed arm. The complaint alleges this arm provides for axial adjustment and pivotal connection to the platform, further alleging it contains a "CABLE CONNECTION TO THE SENSOR" (Compl. ¶38).	¶37-38	col. 3:17-24
wherein the book holder is removably attached and adjusted to a reading position by the telescoping arrangement axially adjusting the space relation between the book support platform and the clasp and the pivotal connection on the book support platform pivotally adjusting the front surface with respect to the arm.	The complaint alleges the entire assembly is adjustable and that "A DEFLEX OF THE ADJUSTABLE RESILIENT CLIP/PIN WILL REMOVE ATTACHMENT FOR AN EASY REMOVAL" (Compl. ¶39). The pivotal connection is alleged to adjust the camera lens and sensor automatically (Compl. ¶41).	¶39-41	col. 5:26-34

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The central dispute appears to be definitional: Does the term "book holder" as claimed, and its constituent element "book support platform", read on an apparatus whose sole alleged function is to mount a camera? The complaint's own hand-drawn schematic illustrates an expansive view of the invention, including "Audio equipment," suggesting a broad interpretation will be advanced (Compl. ¶18).
• Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused MTA device possesses the specific mechanical structures recited in Claim 1. For example, what evidence does the complaint provide that the accused device's arm incorporates a "telescoping arrangement" for axial adjustment, or that its attachment mechanism functions as a "clasp" with a "pair of resilient clip arms," as opposed to a different type of fixed or adjustable bracket?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"book support platform"

• Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical. The case may turn on whether a structure used exclusively as a camera mount can be considered a "book support platform." Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused product's identity as a camera mount appears fundamentally different from the patent's title, "Book Holder."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states, "The book platform 12 may also be used to support such items as audio/video equipment, PDAs, or mobile phones, cameras, computers..." ('840 Patent, col. 5:35-38). This language may support an argument that the term is not limited to holding books.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim itself recites that the platform's front surface is "adapted for supporting a book" and includes "clamps... to engage and retain the book" ('840 Patent, col. 6:15-20). The patent's title, abstract, and primary embodiment (Fig. 1) all center on holding a physical book, which could support a narrower construction.

"removably attached"

• Context and Importance: Plaintiff emphasizes this feature, contrasting it with permanently "riveted" mounts from prior disputes and alleging the accused device is easily removable (Compl. ¶14, 39). The actual method of attachment for the MTA device will be a key factual issue tied to this term's meaning.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states an object is to provide a holder that can be "easily and remvoably attached to and removed from... the mobile vehicle without tools" ('840 Patent, col. 2:63-65). This suggests a functional definition based on ease of removal.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific embodiments for removal, such as "resilient C-shaped clip arms" ('840 Patent, col. 3:28-30). A party could argue the term should be limited to the types of quick-release clasping mechanisms shown, not any non-permanent attachment.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint's allegations focus on Defendant's direct use of the accused systems and do not articulate a clear theory of either induced or contributory infringement.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge, stating, "The MTA have been informed of this impending law suit many times and they refuse to address it, the last time MTA receive some information consigning this law suit was on 2021" (Compl. ¶3). This allegation forms the basis for a potential claim of willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "book support platform", originating in a patent titled "Book Holder," be construed to cover a dedicated camera mount, even where the specification discloses cameras as one of many possible items the platform could support?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: does the physical construction of the MTA’s camera mount meet the specific mechanical limitations of Claim 1, such as the "telescoping arrangement" and the "clasp comprising a... pair of resilient clip arms," or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation and components?