DCT
1:22-cv-00588
Stryker Corp v. Ferno Washington Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Stryker Corporation and Stryker Sales, LLC (Michigan)
- Defendant: Ferno-Washington, Inc. and Ferno Group, Inc. (Ohio)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Thompson Hine LLP
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00588, S.D. Ohio, 11/01/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants are organized under the laws of Ohio and reside in the Southern District of Ohio.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ambulance cots and cot fastening systems infringe a portfolio of nine U.S. utility and design patents related to ambulance cot elevating mechanisms, safety features, and fastening systems.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns powered ambulance cots designed to reduce physical strain on Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel and enhance patient safety during transport and loading operations.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents, citing them during the prosecution of their own patent applications. It further alleges that a former Stryker employee, who is a named inventor on the ’571 Patent, is now Defendant’s vice president of global marketing and product development.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-09-24 | Priority Date for U.S. 7,398,571; RE44,884; 7,725,968; 8,056,950 |
| 2008-07-15 | U.S. Patent No. 7,398,571 Issues |
| 2010-06-01 | U.S. Patent No. 7,725,968 Issues |
| 2011-11-15 | U.S. Patent No. 8,056,950 Issues |
| 2014-05-13 | U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE44,884 Issues |
| 2015-10-23 | Priority Date for U.S. 10,058,464; 11,090,207; D794,205; D833,623; D875,950 |
| 2017-08-08 | U.S. Design Patent No. D794,205 Issues |
| 2018-08-28 | U.S. Patent No. 10,058,464 Issues |
| 2018-11-13 | U.S. Design Patent No. D833,623 Issues |
| 2020-02-18 | U.S. Design Patent No. D875,950 Issues |
| 2021-08-17 | U.S. Patent No. 11,090,207 Issues |
| 2022-11-01 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,398,571 - "Ambulance Cot And Hydraulic Elevating Mechanism Therefor," Issued July 15, 2008
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the risk of career-ending back injuries to EMS personnel caused by manually lifting heavy ambulance cots, particularly during the transition into an ambulance. (Compl. ¶15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an ambulance cot with an elevating mechanism that can intelligently alter its behavior. The mechanism is configured to detect the presence or absence of a force that would urge the cot up or down, such as the force from the ground supporting the cot's wheels. When this supporting force is absent (e.g., when the cot is lifted off the ground to be loaded into an ambulance), the mechanism causes the base frame and the litter frame to move closer together, often at a different speed, to facilitate loading. (’571 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:49-65).
- Technical Importance: This technology allows for powered, variable-speed leg retraction, which can reduce the physical burden and time required for EMS personnel to safely load a patient into a vehicle. (Compl. ¶16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 2, and 5. (Compl. ¶38).
- Independent Claim 1 recites an ambulance cot with:
- a base frame;
- a litter frame; and
- an elevating mechanism interconnecting the frames, which is configured to detect a presence and an absence of a force urging a change in elevation, thereby causing the frames to become oriented closer together.
- Independent Claim 2 recites a similar cot where the elevating mechanism is a "deployment mechanism" with a "detection device" and adds:
- a control mechanism with a manually operable device that effects a rapid movement of the deployment mechanism when the detection device detects an absence of force (e.g., when lifted from a support surface).
- Independent Claim 5 recites a similar cot and adds:
- a control mechanism that facilitates movement of the frames toward each other at differing speeds, predicated on whether the base frame is supported on a surface and the litter frame is supported by an external support.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 6-10 and 14. (Compl. ¶38).
U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE44,884 - "Ambulance Cot With Pinch Safety Feature," Issued May 13, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The background of the patent family discusses the complex linkages in ambulance cots, which can create pinch points during operation, posing a safety risk to operators. (’571 Patent, col. 1:19-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a safety feature within an X-frame support mechanism. It includes a "first mount" on one of the frame members that is specifically configured to engage the base frame when the litter is lowered. This engagement is designed to prevent an operator's extremities from being caught in the mechanism as the frames come together. (’884 Reissue Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-12).
- Technical Importance: This feature provides a mechanical safeguard intended to reduce the risk of injury from the powerful forces exerted by cot elevating mechanisms.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 3 and dependent claim 4. (Compl. ¶119).
- Independent Claim 3 recites an ambulance cot with:
- a base frame;
- a litter frame;
- an X-frame support mechanism with at least one pair of pivotally secured frame members;
- at least one of the frame members having a "first mount" oriented between its mid-length and the litter frame;
- the first mount is configured to engage the base frame when the litter frame becomes proximate to the base frame; and
- the base frame has rails and a crosswise member oriented in the path of the first mount so that the mount engages and rests on the crosswise member.
U.S. Patent No. 7,725,968 - "Ambulance Cot With Retractable Head Section And Control System Therefor," Issued June 1, 2010
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an ambulance cot with a retractable, U-shaped head section. The invention focuses on the control mechanism, including handles, locking features, and a deactivation mechanism to prevent accidental retraction or extension, particularly when the cot is loaded into an ambulance. (Compl. ¶¶ 147-159).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1-10, 12-13, and 15-22. Independent claims are 1 and 15. (Compl. ¶144).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the retractable head section of the iNX Cot, including its handles, locking pins, and safety bar, infringes the ’968 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 148-183).
U.S. Patent No. 8,056,950 - "In-Ambulance Cot Shut-Off Device," Issued November 15, 2011
- Technology Synopsis: This patent covers a combination of an ambulance cot and an ambulance. The invention is a safety system that renders the cot's drive mechanism inoperative when the system determines the cot is present in the ambulance's cargo area, preventing accidental operation while the vehicle is in motion. (Compl. ¶216).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1-2 and 10. Independent claims are 1 and 10. (Compl. ¶213).
- Accused Features: The combination of the X1 Cot and iNX Cot with the F1 Fastener or iNLINE Fastener is alleged to infringe. Specifically, the "Cot Power Lockout" and "In-fastener shut-off" features that disable the cot's power when secured in the fastener are accused. (Compl. ¶¶ 221, 238).
U.S. Patent No. 10,058,464 - "Cot Fastening System," Issued August 28, 2018
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for fastening a cot to the floor of an emergency vehicle. The system's frame has a narrower first section that allows the cot to straddle it, and a wider, diverging second section that acts as a guide for the cot's wheels during loading. The system also includes restraint assemblies for securing the cot. (’464 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1-3, 7-19, and 21. Independent claims are 1, 8, and 14. (Compl. ¶261).
- Accused Features: The PRO F1 Universal Cot Fastener is accused of infringing. Allegations focus on the fastener's frame shape, restraint assemblies, and guide members. (Compl. ¶¶ 265-277).
U.S. Patent No. 11,090,207 - "Cot Fastening System," Issued August 17, 2021
- Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the '464 Patent, this patent also relates to a cot fastening system. It claims a similar frame with diverging sections to guide the cot, along with first and second restraint assemblies and a spring for biasing the cot and applying a pre-load. (’207 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1-7. Independent claim is 1. (Compl. ¶379).
- Accused Features: The PRO F1 Universal Cot Fastener is accused of infringing, with allegations targeting its frame, restraint assemblies, and spring-biasing mechanism. (Compl. ¶¶ 383-392).
Other Asserted Patents (Design)
- The complaint also asserts infringement of U.S. Design Patent Nos. D794,205, D833,623, and D875,950, all titled "Cot Fastener." (Compl. ¶¶ 324, 342, 360). The allegations state that the overall visual appearance of the accused F1 Fastener is substantially the same as the designs claimed in these patents. (Compl. ¶¶ 326, 344, 362).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are the Ferno POWER X1 Ambulance Cot ("X1 Cot"), the iNX Integrated Patient Transport & Loading System ("iNX Cot"), and the PRO F1 Universal Cot Fastener ("F1 Fastener"). (Compl. ¶29).
Functionality and Market Context
- The X1 Cot and iNX Cot are powered, wheeled ambulance cots used for patient transport. The complaint alleges they include features such as a "RAPIDLift Retraction System" and "Automatic high-speed extend & retract," which are alleged to automatically increase the speed of leg retraction when the cot is lifted off the ground to facilitate loading into an ambulance. (Compl. ¶¶ 43-44, 75-76). The complaint provides an annotated image of the X1 Cot, identifying its base frame, litter frame, and elevating mechanism. (Compl. ¶42).
- The F1 Fastener is a device mounted to the floor of an ambulance to secure the cot during transport. (Compl. ¶29). It is alleged to be part of a system that disables the cot's power when the cot is secured, a feature described as "Cot Power Lockout." (Compl. ¶221).
- The complaint alleges that Defendants are direct competitors and that the accused products are advertised as "cross-compatible" with Stryker's own cot fastener systems. (Compl. ¶35).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’571 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An ambulance cot, comprising: a base frame; a litter frame; and | The X1 Cot is an ambulance cot with a base frame and a litter frame. | ¶42 | col. 4:51-53 |
| an elevating mechanism interconnecting said base frame and said litter frame and being configured to effect changes in elevation of said litter frame relative to said base frame, | The X1 Cot includes an elevating mechanism that interconnects the frames to raise and lower the litter frame. | ¶42 | col. 4:53-56 |
| said elevating mechanism being configured to detect a presence and an absence of a force urging a change in elevation of said litter frame relative to said base frame | The elevating mechanism includes a detection device, such as a contact sensor, that determines whether the X1 Cot is supported by the ground. | ¶44 | col. 6:49-54 |
| to thereby cause said base frame and said litter frame to become oriented closer together. | When the detection device determines the X1 Cot is not supported by the ground (absence of force), the leg retraction speed is increased to facilitate loading, causing the frames to move closer together. | ¶¶43-44 | col. 6:54-58 |
’884 Reissue Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 3) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An ambulance cot, comprising: a base frame; a litter frame; and an X-frame support mechanism interconnecting said base frame and said litter frame... | The X1 Cot is an ambulance cot with a base frame, a litter frame, and an X-frame support mechanism. | ¶123 | col. 3:31-35 |
| said support mechanism including at least one pair of frame members pivotally secured to each other proximate the mid-length thereof, said at least one pair of frame members each having opposite ends respectively secured to one of said base frame and said litter frame, | The X1 Cot's support mechanism includes a pair of frame members that are pivotally secured near their mid-length and have ends secured to the base and litter frames. | ¶124 | col. 3:36-40 |
| at least one of said pair of frame members having a first mount oriented between said mid-length thereof and said litter frame, said first mount being configured to engage said base frame in response to said litter frame becoming proximate said base frame; | The X1 Cot includes a component identified as a "first mount" located on an upper frame member, which is alleged to engage the base frame when the cot is lowered. The complaint provides a close-up photograph purporting to show this feature. | ¶125 | col. 3:41-45 |
| and wherein said base frame has longitudinally extending side rails and at least one crosswise member interconnecting said side rails and being oriented in a path of movement of said first mount... so that said first mount engages and rests upon said at least one crosswise member. | The X1 Cot's base frame has side rails and a crosswise member. The complaint alleges this crosswise member is positioned to be engaged by the "first mount" when the cot is lowered. | ¶126 | col. 3:46-51 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: For the ’571 Patent, a central issue may be whether the accused products' alleged "contact sensor" (Compl. ¶44) meets the claim limitation of a mechanism "configured to detect a presence and an absence of a force." The litigation may explore whether detecting ground contact is equivalent to detecting a "force urging a change in elevation," or if the claim requires a more sophisticated force-sensing capability.
- Technical Questions: For the ’884 Reissue Patent, the dispute may focus on whether the component identified by the Plaintiff as the "first mount" (Compl. ¶125) on the accused cots has the same structure and function as the claimed element. Questions may arise as to whether this component is primarily "configured to engage said base frame" as a safety feature, as the patent suggests, or if its engagement is incidental to another function.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "detect a presence and an absence of a force urging a change in elevation" (’571 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance
This term is the functional heart of Claim 1 of the ’571 Patent. Its construction will determine whether a simple ground-contact sensor, as alleged in the complaint, infringes, or if a more direct method of force measurement is required by the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from a simple manual switch for changing speeds.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the control mechanism's operation is "predicated on at least one of whether the base frame is supported on the surface and the litter frame is supported by an external support." (’571 Patent, Abstract). This language could suggest that sensing the condition of being "supported on the surface" is a way of detecting the presence of the claimed force.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim uses the specific word "force." The detailed description mentions "pressure detection" as part of the control system. (’571 Patent, FIG. 24). A defendant may argue this implies a requirement for a transducer that measures pressure or force, not merely a binary switch that detects physical contact with the ground.
Term: "first mount" (’884 Reissue Patent, Claim 3)
Context and Importance
The infringement theory for the ’884 Reissue Patent depends on identifying a "first mount" on the accused products that engages the base frame as claimed. The definition of this structural term is critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent describes it as a key component of a "pinch safety feature."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims broadly recite a "mount" without specifying its shape or material, only its location and function of engaging the base frame. This may allow Plaintiff to argue that any component on the accused device that performs this function in the specified location meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is titled "Ambulance Cot With Pinch Safety Feature." A defendant may argue that to be a "first mount," the structure must be shown to be "configured to" and intended to serve this specific safety purpose, rather than being a structural element whose engagement with the base frame is incidental or for a different purpose, such as stability.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges Defendants induce infringement by providing customers with promotional materials, sales sheets, and user manuals that instruct on the use of the accused features, such as the high-speed leg retraction of the X1 and iNX Cots and the cot-disabling function of the F1 Fastener. (Compl. ¶¶ 30-31, 106-109).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' alleged pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents. The basis for this allegation includes Defendants having cited at least the ’571, ’884 Reissue, ’968, ’950, and ’464 patents during the prosecution of their own patent applications. (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 116, 141). The complaint also notes that an inventor on the ’571 Patent is now an executive at the Defendant company. (Compl. ¶34).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of functional scope: does the accused cots' use of a "contact sensor" to determine if the cot is supported by the ground (Compl. ¶44) perform the specific function required by the ’571 Patent of "detect[ing] a presence and an absence of a force urging a change in elevation," or does the claim require a more direct means of force measurement?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural identity and purpose: do the accused cots contain a component that meets the definition of the "first mount" as claimed in the ’884 Reissue Patent, and is that component "configured to engage said base frame" to serve the pinch-prevention safety function described in the patent, or is it a structurally distinct component with a different primary purpose?
- A central question for damages will be willfulness: given the allegations that Defendants cited numerous asserted patents during their own patent prosecution and hired one of the lead inventors from the Plaintiff, the court will need to determine if any infringement found was willful, which could lead to enhanced damages.