DCT
3:13-cv-00968
Skedco Inc v. Strategic Operations Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Skedco, Inc. (Oregon)
- Defendant: Strategic Operations, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stoel Rives LLP
- Case Identification: 3:13-cv-00968, D. Or., 06/10/2013
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant offers for sale and, upon information and belief, has sold the accused infringing products within the District of Oregon.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff, the exclusive licensee of a patent owned by the U.S. Army, alleges that Defendant’s bleeding simulation and trauma training products infringe a patent related to portable hemorrhage simulation systems.
- Technical Context: The technology involves realistic medical simulators designed to provide dynamic, in-field training for military personnel, first responders, and other critical care givers in treating traumatic bleeding injuries.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is owned by the U.S. Army, and Plaintiff asserts its rights as the sole and exclusive licensee with the power to bring suit. The complaint also alleges that Defendant had actual notice of the published patent application approximately three months before the patent issued, which forms the basis for claims of provisional rights and willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-12-02 | '852 Patent Priority Date |
| 2007-12-11 | Plaintiff and U.S. Army enter Exclusive License Agreement |
| 2011-05-12 | U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0111380 A1 published |
| 2012-09-26 | Date of Defendant's alleged actual notice of the publication |
| 2013-01-01 | '852 Patent Issue Date |
| 2013-06-10 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,342,852 - "Trauma Training System," issued January 1, 2013.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a need for improved trauma training systems. It notes that existing simulation devices are often either too simplistic, or are overly complex, fragile, and expensive for realistic, large-scale, in-the-field training scenarios. Furthermore, simulations using human actors with static "wounds" lack dynamism (’852 Patent, col. 1:26-67).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable and flexible system designed to realistically simulate hemorrhaging. The core system, as shown in block diagrams like Figure 1A, consists of a fluid reservoir, a pump, a controller, and at least one simulated wound site (’852 Patent, Fig. 1A; col. 3:30-36). The system is designed to be integrated into various "housings" such as a mannequin, body suit, or backpack, providing dynamic and interactive feedback for trainees (’852 Patent, col. 3:36-42).
- Technical Importance: The described technology enables the creation of dynamic, field-deployable training systems that can better prepare medical personnel and first responders for treating traumatic bleeding injuries (’852 Patent, col. 1:19-25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 18 and dependent Claims 19 and 20 (’Compl. ¶11).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 18 are:
- A trauma training system for replicating at least one hemorrhage
- a collapsible reservoir having a capacity capable of storing fluid,
- a pump in fluid communication with the cavity of said reservoir,
- at least one valve in fluid communication with said pump,
- a controller connected to said pump and said at least one valve, and
- at least one wound site detachably in fluid communication with said valve.
- The complaint does not specify which, if any, additional dependent claims it may assert in the future.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies "bleeding simulation and trauma training products identified as the Blood Pumping System (or 'BPS') and the Blast Trousers" (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products are used for "bleeding simulation and trauma training" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not provide further technical detail regarding the specific design, components, or operation of the Blood Pumping System or the Blast Trousers. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe at least claims 18, 19, and 20 of the '852 Patent by being made, used, offered for sale, sold, or imported by the Defendant (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not contain a detailed claim chart or map specific features of the Accused Products to the limitations of the asserted claims. The infringement theory summarized below is based on the general allegations in the complaint.
'852 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 18) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a collapsible reservoir having a capacity capable of storing fluid, | The complaint alleges the Accused Products are bleeding simulators, which suggests they contain a reservoir for simulated blood. | ¶11 | col. 2:11 |
| a pump in fluid communication with the cavity of said reservoir, | The Accused "Blood Pumping System," by its name, is alleged to contain a pump to move simulated blood. | ¶11 | col. 2:12 |
| at least one valve in fluid communication with said pump, | The allegation of infringement suggests the Accused Products contain at least one valve to control fluid flow. | ¶11 | col. 2:13-14 |
| a controller connected to said pump and said at least one valve, and | The allegation of infringement suggests the Accused Products contain a controller to operate the pump and valve. | ¶11 | col. 2:14-15 |
| at least one wound site detachably in fluid communication with said valve... | The Accused Products are described as "trauma training products," which suggests they include simulated wound sites. | ¶11 | col. 2:15-18 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint provides no specific evidence, such as product documentation or technical analysis, to support its allegations that the Accused Products contain each element of the asserted claims. A central issue will be whether discovery reveals that the Accused Products actually practice the claimed invention.
- Technical Questions: A key question is whether the Accused Products, particularly the "Blood Pumping System," incorporate a collapsible reservoir, as required by the claim, or a rigid one. Another question is whether the "Blast Trousers" product constitutes a complete "trauma training system" on its own, or if it is a component that does not meet all claim limitations.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "collapsible reservoir"
Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble of independent claim 18. Its construction is critical because a finding that the Accused Products use a non-collapsible or rigid reservoir could support a non-infringement argument. Practitioners may focus on whether "collapsible" implies a specific structure or merely any non-rigid container.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "flexible membranes and containers that are capable of holding fluid" ('852 Patent, col. 4:1-3), which could be argued to encompass a wide range of non-rigid containers.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links the collapsible nature to a specific function: to "keep the pump 120 primed" ('852 Patent, col. 4:5-6). It also describes a specific embodiment as an "elastic bag that constricts as fluid is drawn" ('852 Patent, col. 4:6-8), which could support a narrower construction requiring an active or self-collapsing feature.
The Term: "wound site detachably in fluid communication"
Context and Importance: This limitation in claim 18 requires a non-permanent connection between the wound site and the system. The interpretation of "detachably" will determine whether the connections in the Accused Products meet this limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself may be argued to cover any connection that is not permanent or welded, regardless of the ease of detachment.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes embodiments with "quick connectors 158" that "allow quick and easy line connections" to different wound sites ('852 Patent, col. 5:4-8). This emphasis on modularity and ease of swapping components could be used to argue for a construction requiring a tool-free, user-friendly connection.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a conclusory allegation of contributory and induced infringement (Compl. ¶11). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for such claims, such as alleging that Defendant provides instructions or user manuals that encourage infringing use.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was willful and intentional "upon information and belief" (Compl. ¶13). This allegation is supported by the factual assertion that Defendant had "actual notice of the '380 Publication [the application leading to the '852 patent] at least as early as September 26, 2012," over three months before the patent issued (Compl. ¶18). Plaintiff will likely argue this pre-issuance notice of the pending claims supports a finding of deliberate post-issuance infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of evidentiary demonstration: Can Plaintiff, through discovery, produce sufficient evidence to show that the Accused Products—the "Blood Pumping System" and "Blast Trousers"—actually contain every element of the asserted claims, particularly given the absence of detailed factual allegations in the initial complaint?
- The case will also likely involve a question of definitional precision: Will the term "collapsible reservoir" be construed broadly to mean any flexible container, or will it be limited to a structure that actively collapses to keep a pump primed, as described in a preferred embodiment? The outcome of this claim construction dispute could be dispositive for infringement.