DCT

1:24-cv-00115

Stander v. Baiera Wellness Products

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Stander Inc. (Utah)
- Defendant: Baiera Wellness Products Inc. d/b/a step2bed (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dorsey & Whitney LLP
Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00115, D. Utah, 07/09/2024
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of Utah.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "Bed Step" product does not infringe Defendant's patent related to a bed step stool and that the patent is invalid, following an infringement accusation made by Defendant through the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) program.
Technical Context: The technology involves mobility assistance devices, specifically freestanding step stools with integrated guardrails to help individuals with limited mobility safely get into and out of bed.
Key Procedural History: The dispute was initiated by Defendant's filing of a complaint under Amazon's APEX program, which resulted in the removal of Plaintiff's product listing from Amazon's marketplace. This extra-judicial enforcement action prompted Plaintiff to file this declaratory judgment action in federal court, where issues of both infringement and patent invalidity can be considered.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2015-06-24	’353 Patent Priority Date
2019-02-26	’353 Patent Issue Date
2024-06-27	Plaintiff received notice of Defendant's APEX complaint
2024-07-09	Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,213,353 - "BED STEP STOOL AND METHOD OF USE," issued February 26, 2019.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenges seniors and individuals with limited mobility face when getting into bed, noting that conventional bed rails are often attached to the bed, are not portable, and can force a user to enter from the foot of the bed, which is inconvenient (ʼ353 Patent, col. 1:28-41).
The Patented Solution: The invention is a freestanding, portable step stool featuring two supports or guardrails of different heights. A taller support is placed near the head of the bed and a shorter support is placed near the foot, creating a pathway between them that is perpendicular to the side of the bed. This arrangement allows a user to step onto the stool from the side, use the taller rail for stability while sitting on the bed, and then swing their legs over the shorter rail to get into a resting position (ʼ353 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:37-51). The device's orientation creates a "T-shaped configuration" with the bed (ʼ353 Patent, col. 4:65-67).
Technical Importance: The design provides a stable, side-entry solution that is not physically attached to the bed, offering greater portability and flexibility compared to traditional bed rails (ʼ353 Patent, col. 5:26-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges that the Defendant has contended infringement of "at least one claim of the '353 patent" (Compl. ¶21). The patent contains two independent claims, Claim 1 and Claim 10.
Independent Claim 1: A bed step stool comprising:
- a first support to be disposed closer to the head of the bed;
- a second support to be disposed closer to the foot of the bed;
- a step assembly supported between the first and second support;
- wherein the first and second support define an unobstructed pathway for entry and exit that is perpendicular with respect to the sides of the bed.
Independent Claim 10: A bed step stool comprising:
- a first support to be disposed closer to the head of the bed;
- a second support, which is shorter than the first support, to be disposed closer to the foot of the bed;
- a step assembly supported between the first and second support;
- wherein the first support defines a first plane and the second support defines a second plane, with the first and second planes being parallel to each other and perpendicular to the planes defined by the sides of the bed.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Plaintiff's "Bed Step" product (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the product as a "medical equipment product" and a "mobility aid" designed to provide "unique solutions to seniors and caregivers" (Compl. ¶15). The product is manufactured and sold in the United States, including through Amazon.com (Compl. ¶16).
The complaint does not provide further technical details or visuals of the product's specific design or operational features.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint, being a request for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, does not contain affirmative infringement allegations or claim charts. It alleges that Defendant Baiera accused Stander's "Bed Step" product of infringing at least one claim of the ’353 patent in an Amazon APEX proceeding (Compl. ¶2, 21). Plaintiff Stander makes general denials that its product infringes any valid and enforceable claim, either directly or indirectly (Compl. ¶22).

Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent’s claims, the dispute will likely involve several key questions:
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be the construction of geometric and relational terms. For Claim 1, this includes whether the accused product creates an "unobstructed pathway" and whether its intended orientation is "perpendicular with respect to the sides of the bed." For Claim 10, the question extends to whether the product’s supports define "parallel planes" that are "perpendicular" to the bed.
- Technical Questions: A factual question may arise as to whether the Stander "Bed Step" product has a structure corresponding to the claimed elements, such as a "first support" and a "second support" that are distinct and function as described in the patent (e.g., one being taller than the other, as required by dependent claims and Independent Claim 10).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "perpendicular with respect to the sides of the bed" (Claim 1, 10)
- Context and Importance: This term dictates the required spatial relationship between the patented device and the bed. The infringement analysis for both independent claims will depend heavily on whether the accused product is designed and used in a "perpendicular" orientation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  - Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the term should be interpreted as "generally" or "substantially" perpendicular, as the claims do not specify an exact 90-degree angle. Such an argument may suggest that any orientation that facilitates side entry as broadly described would suffice.
  - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that when the stool is in position, "the bed step stool 100 and the bed 110 form a T-shaped configuration" (ʼ353 Patent, col. 4:65-67). This language, along with the depiction in Figure 1, may support a narrower construction requiring a more precise geometric arrangement.
The Term: "unobstructed pathway" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining what constitutes an infringing device. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused product includes any structural element between the two side supports, it might be argued that the pathway is not "unobstructed."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  - Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lacks a formal definition, which may support a plain and ordinary meaning of a clear space for a user to walk through.
  - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim itself provides context, stating the pathway allows a user to go "between the first support and the second support to step onto the step assembly and off the step assembly without any obstruction" (ʼ353 Patent, col. 6:33-40). This could be interpreted to mean a pathway completely free of any impediment that would interfere with the specific entry and exit movements described in the patent's method of use (ʼ353 Patent, FIG. 4A-4B).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement for both direct and indirect infringement but offers no specific facts, as its purpose is to deny liability (Compl. ¶22, 25).
Willful Infringement: The complaint makes no allegations regarding willfulness. It does request that the case be found "exceptional" to warrant an award of attorneys' fees, based on the allegation that Defendant's infringement claims are "baseless" (Compl. ¶26).

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

This declaratory judgment action appears to center on fundamental disagreements over claim scope and product design. The resolution of the case will likely depend on the court’s answers to two primary questions:

A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "perpendicular," as used in the claims, be construed broadly to mean "generally" oriented for side entry, or must it be limited to the strict "T-shaped configuration" described in the patent's specification and depicted in its figures?
A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: Does the Plaintiff's "Bed Step" product, as designed and sold, possess the distinct structural elements required by the claims—specifically, two separate supports creating an "unobstructed pathway"—or does its design differ in a way that places it outside the scope of the patent's claims, regardless of their construction?