DCT
3:24-cv-00094
E Mishan & Sons Inc v. Mark Feldstein & Associates Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. (New York)
- Defendant: Mark Feldstein & Associates, Inc. (Ohio)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP; Notaro, Michalos & Zaccaria P.C.
- Case Identification: 3:24-cv-00094, N.D. Ohio, 01/16/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Ohio because Defendant is incorporated there, maintains its principal place of business in the district, and allegedly committed infringing acts within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Sophist-a-Care" car door support handle infringes two utility patents and two design patents related to portable vehicle entry and egress assistance devices.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld mobility aids designed to provide leverage and support for individuals entering or exiting a vehicle by engaging with the vehicle's door latch striker pin.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-02-19 | Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit |
| 2015-01-01 | Plaintiff's "Car Cane" first marketed (approximate date) |
| 2015-11-17 | U.S. Design Patent No. D743,324 Issued |
| 2016-08-02 | U.S. Patent No. 9,403,466 Issued |
| 2016-09-20 | U.S. Design Patent No. D766,809 Issued |
| 2017-01-03 | U.S. Patent No. 9,533,611 Issued |
| 2024-01-16 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,403,466 - “Vehicle Entry/Egress Assistance Device”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9403466, “Vehicle Entry/Egress Assistance Device,” issued August 2, 2016. (Compl. ¶23)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art assistance devices as potentially awkward and unstable, particularly for elderly or infirmed persons, because they may require the user to hold an outwardly extending handle in a non-ergonomic position. (’466 Patent, col. 1:43-56)
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable assistance device comprising a handle, a post for insertion into a vehicle’s door striker pin, and a key feature described as an "enlarged area" or "outrigger." This outrigger is designed to provide stability and prevent incorrect insertion of the device, ensuring it is used within the plane of the door frame for better leverage. (’466 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-15). The device also incorporates an LED light to help the user locate the striker pin in the dark. (’466 Patent, col. 2:60-62)
- Technical Importance: The design aims to improve the safety and ergonomic stability of vehicle assistance handles by guiding the user to a proper orientation and providing a more secure platform for support. (’466 Patent, col. 2:9-15)
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1, among others. (Compl. ¶44)
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- An assistance device for entering and leaving a vehicle comprising:
- a handle member for supporting at least part of the weight of a user;
- a striker pin insertion post connected to the handle member;
- an enlarged area between the handle and post, extending transversely outward on opposite sides;
- wherein the handle member is "straight" and has an axis, and the device includes at least one "LED for casting light parallel to the axis". (Compl. ¶25)
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-12. (Compl. ¶44)
U.S. Patent No. 9,533,611 - “Vehicle Entry/Egress Assistance Device”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9533611, “Vehicle Entry/Egress Assistance Device,” issued January 3, 2017. (Compl. ¶26)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’466 Patent, this patent addresses the ergonomic challenges and instability of prior art assistance handles that extend outwardly from the vehicle. (’611 Patent, col. 1:48-59)
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a similar device with a handle, insertion post, and an "outrigger." The claims of the ’611 Patent place particular emphasis on the functional aspect of the outrigger, describing it as being of a "sufficient size to impede entry" of the post if the device is not properly aligned with the door frame, thereby preventing misuse. (’611 Patent, Claim 12). The specification explains this feature establishes a more stable and ergonomic position for the user. (’611 Patent, col. 2:10-16)
- Technical Importance: The invention focuses on a specific safety and usability feature that physically guides the user to the correct operational alignment, enhancing stability and preventing improper, and potentially unsafe, use. (’611 Patent, col. 2:42-47)
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 12, among others. (Compl. ¶49)
- The essential elements of independent claim 12 are:
- An assistance device for entering and leaving a vehicle comprising:
- a handle member for supporting a user's weight;
- a striker pin insertion post also for supporting a user's weight;
- an "outrigger" extending transversely outward from the insertion post, of a "sufficient size to impede entry" of the post into the striker pin opening when the handle is outside the plane of the door frame. (Compl. ¶28)
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 1-6, 8, 10, 13-18, and 21-27. (Compl. ¶49)
U.S. Design Patent No. D743,324 - “Car Handle”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D743324, “Car Handle,” issued November 17, 2015. (Compl. ¶29)
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims the ornamental design for a vehicle assistance handle. The claimed design shows a tool with a T-shaped head that includes an insertion post, an ergonomically contoured grip, and a hook-shaped feature at the base of the handle. (Compl. ¶31, p. 8)
- Asserted Claims: The patent's single claim for the ornamental design as shown in its figures. (Compl. ¶31)
- Accused Features: The overall ornamental appearance of the Defendant's "MFA Car Handle" is alleged to infringe the D’324 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶54, 40)
U.S. Design Patent No. D766,809 - “Vehicle Assist Device”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D766809, “Vehicle Assist Device,” issued September 20, 2016. (Compl. ¶32)
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an alternative ornamental design for a vehicle assistance handle. The design features a similar overall configuration to the D'324 patent, but with a different handle shape that is less contoured and has a distinct surface texture. (Compl. ¶34, p. 8)
- Asserted Claims: The patent's single claim for the ornamental design as shown in its figures. (Compl. ¶34)
- Accused Features: The overall ornamental appearance of the Defendant's "MFA Car Handle" is alleged to infringe the D’809 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶61, 41)
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "MFA Car Handle," which is marketed under the "Sophist-a-Care" trademark. (Compl. ¶35)
Functionality and Market Context
- The MFA Car Handle is a portable car door support handle designed to assist users with entering and leaving a vehicle. (Compl. ¶35). The complaint includes a photograph showing the accused product, which features a hand grip, an insertion post, and a T-shaped head. (Compl. ¶36). The infringement allegations and accompanying annotated photographs assert that the device includes a handle member, a striker pin insertion post, an enlarged area or outrigger, and an LED light. (Compl. ¶¶38-39). The complaint alleges the product is sold in direct competition with Plaintiff's "Car Cane" product. (Compl. ¶37)
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'466 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a handle member for supporting at least part of the weight of a user grasping the handle member | The accused product includes a "handle member" intended for gripping by a user to provide support. | ¶38 | col. 3:56-61 |
| a striker pin insertion post connected to the handle member for extending into an opening of a striker pin in a door frame of the vehicle | The accused product includes a "striker pin insertion post" connected to the handle, designed to fit into a vehicle's door latch. | ¶38 | col. 3:61-67 |
| an enlarged area between the handle member and striker pin insertion post, extending transversely outwardly of the insertion post, on respective opposite sides of the handle member and the insertion post | The accused product's T-shaped head constitutes an "enlarged area" that extends to either side of the insertion post. | ¶38 | col. 4:10-18 |
| wherein the handle member is straight and has an axis, the device including at least one LED for casting light parallel to the axis | The complaint alleges the handle has an axis and, as shown in an annotated image, includes an "LED." The complaint alleges this LED casts light parallel to the axis. | ¶38 | col. 5:1-5 |
'611 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a handle member for supporting at least part of the weight of a user grasping the handle member | The accused product possesses a "handle member" for user support. | ¶39 | col. 4:60-63 |
| a striker pin insertion post connected to an end of the handle member...the insertion post also for supporting at least part of the weight of the user grasping the handle member | The accused product's "striker pin insertion post" is alleged to both extend into the door latch and support a user's weight. | ¶39 | col. 4:63-67 |
| an outrigger extending transversely outwardly of the insertion post...of a sufficient size to impede entry of the insertion post...when the end of the handle member is outside the plane of the door frame | The complaint identifies an "outrigger" on the accused product, which is alleged to be sized to prevent incorrect insertion. (Compl. ¶39, p. 11) | ¶39 | col. 4:15-22 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint's allegation that the accused handle is "straight" as required by claim 1 of the ’466 patent raises a question of claim scope, as the photograph of the accused product shows a distinctly curved handle. (Compl. ¶36). The resolution will depend on how broadly the term "straight" is construed.
- Technical Questions: A key technical question for claim 12 of the ’611 patent is whether the accused product's "outrigger" is in fact "of a sufficient size to impede entry" when used improperly. This functional limitation may require testing or expert testimony to demonstrate that the accused product's physical dimensions achieve the claimed impeding function in the manner described by the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "straight" (’466 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the accused MFA Car Handle appears to have an ergonomically curved grip. Practitioners may focus on this term as a primary non-infringement argument for the Defendant will likely be that its handle is not "straight."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification discloses alternative "round" or "hoop" shaped handle designs (e.g., ’466 Patent, Fig. 6), suggesting that "straight" may be used primarily to distinguish elongated handles from looped handles, rather than requiring strict geometric linearity.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain and ordinary meaning of "straight" implies a lack of curvature. Furthermore, the patent text explicitly states that "The invention can be embodied has a straight or a round design." (’466 Patent, col. 2:57-58), potentially framing these as mutually exclusive categories.
The Term: "outrigger...of a sufficient size to impede entry" (’611 Patent, Claim 12)
- Context and Importance: This functional language is central to the ’611 patent's asserted point of novelty. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on proving that the accused product's structure performs this specific function.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the overall object as establishing a "more ergonomic position" and improving "stability," which could suggest that any structure achieving this functional outcome meets the claim. (’611 Patent, col. 2:10-16)
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific mechanism for this function: the outrigger physically contacts the exterior of the door frame, preventing the insertion post from reaching the striker if the handle is improperly angled. (’611 Patent, col. 4:26-34). A court could construe "impede entry" as requiring this specific type of physical blocking.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement of the two design patents (D’324 and D’809) has been "willful and deliberate." (Compl. ¶¶56, 63). The allegations are made "on information and belief" and do not plead specific facts demonstrating pre-suit knowledge of these patents. The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement for the two asserted utility patents.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case presents a direct dispute between competitors over a consumer mobility product, involving both utility and design patents. The resolution will likely depend on the court's determination of several key questions:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "straight" in the ’466 patent, used to describe the handle member, be construed to read on the visibly curved grip of the accused product, or is it limited to a strictly linear design?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: does the accused product's "outrigger" feature actually perform the function of being of a "sufficient size to impede entry" as required by the ’611 patent, and what evidence will be required to prove this specific physical interaction with a vehicle?
- For the design patents, a central question will be whether an ordinary observer, taking into account the prior art, would find the overall ornamental design of the accused MFA Car Handle to be substantially the same as the designs claimed in the D'324 and D'809 patents.