DCT
1:23-cv-00998
Lloyd Industries Inc v. Datrend Systems Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Lloyd Industries, Inc. (Missouri) and BC Group Int'l, Inc. (Missouri)
- Defendant: Datrend Systems, Inc. (Canada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Connor Lee & Shumaker PLLC; Tucker Ellis LLP
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00998, W.D. Tex., 08/23/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendant is a foreign corporation subject to personal jurisdiction in the district. The complaint alleges the defendant transacts business in the district, offered the accused product for sale at a trade show in the district, and operates an interactive website accessible to customers in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s vPad-RF ESU Analyzer, a piece of medical test equipment, infringes a patent related to systems and methods for analyzing signals from electrosurgical units.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns specialized equipment for testing electrosurgical units (ESUs), which are medical devices that use high-frequency electrical currents for procedures like cutting tissue, to ensure they operate safely and meet performance specifications.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of pre-suit communications, starting with a notice letter regarding the patent application in May 2016, followed by notice of the issued patent in October 2018. Subsequent discussions are alleged to have occurred intermittently through August 2023 without resolution. This history is presented to support allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-05-01 | U.S. Patent No. 9,883,903 Priority Date |
| 2016-05-19 | Plaintiff allegedly notified Defendant of pending patent application |
| 2018-02-06 | U.S. Patent No. 9,883,903 Issued |
| 2018-10-17 | Plaintiff allegedly notified Defendant of issued patent |
| 2022-06-03 | Defendant allegedly offered accused product for sale in district |
| 2023-08-23 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,883,903 - Systems and Methods for Analyzing An Electrosurgical Unit
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,883,903, Systems and Methods for Analyzing An Electrosurgical Unit, issued February 6, 2018.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that conventional devices for testing electrosurgical units were too slow to properly analyze the complex, pulsed electrical waveforms generated by modern ESUs. These older methods, based on thermal conversion or simple RMS-to-DC voltage conversion, could not accurately measure or provide detailed information about pulsed signals, limiting their utility for verifying performance and compliance ('903 Patent, col. 1:40-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an ESU analyzer that uses a measurement subsystem featuring a field-programmable gate array (FPGA). This FPGA-based design allows for high-speed, "programmable waveform detection" where one or more signal thresholds can be defined in software to detect and analyze complex waveforms, including pulsed signals with multiple distinct amplitudes ('903 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:30-6:32). By offloading high-speed processing to the FPGA, the system can analyze more data with greater accuracy and display detailed information about individual pulses, rather than just an averaged output ('903 Patent, col. 4:48-54).
- Technical Importance: This approach enabled more precise and comprehensive testing of advanced ESUs, which was critical for ensuring these medical devices met increasingly complex performance and safety specifications ('903 Patent, col. 1:26-31).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 5, and 10. Claim 1 is representative of the asserted system claims.
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- An input configured to receive radio frequency (RF) signals from an electrosurgical generator.
- A measurement subsystem configured for programmable waveform detection, which includes a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) that defines one or more thresholds for the detection.
- An analog to digital (A/D) converter coupled to the FPGA.
- A user interface that displays information relating to individual pulses detected from the RF signals.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶37, 49).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "vPad-RF ESU Analyzer" ("ESU Product") (Compl. ¶5).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the ESU Product is used for testing electrosurgical devices by detecting and analyzing complex signal waveforms, including continuous and non-continuous waveforms (Compl. ¶19). It is alleged to be marketed as a competitor product, including directly to the customers of Plaintiff BC Group (Compl. ¶25, 32). The complaint asserts that the product's functionality relies on hardware and software, including an FPGA, designed to perform programmable waveform detection and analysis (Compl. ¶28, 52, 54). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references an exemplary claim chart in an exhibit (Exhibit 8) that was not attached to the publicly filed document; the following analysis is based on the narrative allegations within the complaint.
'903 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an input configured to receive radio frequency (RF) signals from an electrosurgical generator; | The accused ESU Product is alleged to include an input and to be used for testing electrosurgical devices by analyzing signals generated by them. | ¶31 | col. 11:3-5 |
| a measurement subsystem configured for programmable waveform detection... including a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) defining one or more thresholds for the waveform detection; | The accused ESU Product is alleged to perform programmable waveform detection using a configured FPGA. End users are alleged to configure the FPGA to define thresholds for waveform detection as part of the product's normal operation. | ¶28, ¶54 | col. 11:6-11 |
| an analog to digital (A/D) converter coupled to the FPGA; | The accused ESU Product is alleged to include an analog to digital (A/D) converter. | ¶31 | col. 11:12 |
| and a user interface displaying information relating to individual pulses detected from the RF signals. | The accused ESU Product is alleged to include a user interface that displays results and information derived from the signal analysis. | ¶31, ¶54 | col. 11:13-15 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the scope of "programmable waveform detection." The complaint alleges the accused product's use of an FPGA meets this limitation (Compl. ¶28, 54). The question for the court may be whether "programmable" simply means setting a threshold value, or if it requires the higher level of customizability described in the patent's specification, such as being programmed in a specific language like VHDL ('903 Patent, col. 4:55-58).
- Technical Questions: The claim requires the user interface to display "information relating to individual pulses" ('903 Patent, col. 11:13-15). The complaint alleges the accused product displays "information" and "results" (Compl. ¶31, 54). An evidentiary question will be whether the information displayed by the accused product provides the specific detail "relating to individual pulses" as taught in the patent (e.g., '903 Patent, Fig. 7), or if it provides only more generalized or averaged data.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "programmable waveform detection"
- Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of the asserted claims. The infringement case hinges on whether the accused product's FPGA-based system performs "programmable" detection as claimed. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether merely using an FPGA to set a detection threshold is sufficient to infringe, or if a more sophisticated level of user- or system-level programming is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself simply requires a "measurement subsystem configured for programmable waveform detection" and an FPGA "defining one or more thresholds" ('903 Patent, col. 11:6-11), which could suggest that the ability to set or change thresholds satisfies the "programmable" requirement.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the FPGA as being "completely customizable, for example, programmed in a VHDL programming language" and states it can be configured to "implement custom algorithms" ('903 Patent, col. 4:55-58; col. 7:30-32). This could support an argument that "programmable" implies a deeper level of algorithmic customizability beyond simply setting a value.
The Term: "displaying information relating to individual pulses"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the required output of the claimed system. Its construction is critical because it sets the standard for what the accused product's user interface must show to infringe. A dispute may arise over the level of granularity required by this phrase.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is general, not specifying the type of information that must be displayed. An argument could be made that any displayed data derived from the detection of individual pulses (e.g., a count, an average power) would meet this limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures and detailed description show user interfaces that display specific, distinct measurement parameters for different pulse segments (e.g., "Watts P1," "Time-P1," "Watts P2," "Time-P2") ('903 Patent, Fig. 7; col. 6:50-65). This may support a narrower construction requiring the display of such detailed, segmented pulse data.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant "encourages and instructs customers and end users" on how to use the accused product in an infringing manner through documents and videos on its website (Compl. ¶37). It alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the accused product is "especially made or especially adapted for practicing the invention" and lacks substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶49, 51).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the patent-in-suit and its infringement. The complaint alleges Defendant had notice of the patent application as early as May 2016 and of the issued patent no later than October 2018, and that it continued to sell the accused product without substantial modification despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶34, 39-41).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the term "programmable waveform detection", as used in the claims, merely require the ability to set a signal threshold in a device containing an FPGA, or does the patent’s specification limit the term to systems allowing for deeper algorithmic modification?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional sufficiency: does the accused product's user interface display "information relating to individual pulses" with the level of specific, segmented detail illustrated in the patent's embodiments, or does it present more generalized data that may fall outside a narrower construction of that claim term?
- A third central question will relate to willfulness: given the alleged pre-suit notice dating back to 2016, the court will have to examine the entire course of conduct, including the nature of the parties' communications and Defendant's response to the infringement allegations, to determine if any infringement was "knowing, intentional, and willful." (Compl. ¶34, 46).