DCT
2:18-cv-00773
Science Medical v. Andrew J Black
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Science Medical, LLC (Utah)
- Defendant: SecurLyft, Corp (Utah); Jess Lybbert Campbell (Utah); Andrew J. Black (Utah)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Durham Jones & Pinegar, P.C.
- Case Identification: Science Medical, LLC v. SecurLyft, Corp., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00773, D. Utah, 01/07/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Utah because all defendants reside in the state and the acts giving rise to the complaint allegedly occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that its former consultants misappropriated confidential information and trade secrets to create a competing bed sheet lift system that infringes Plaintiff's patent related to reinforced patient transfer sheets.
- Technical Context: The technology involves reinforced bed sheets with integrated webbing and handles designed to allow for the safer and more ergonomic lifting and transfer of medical patients.
- Key Procedural History: The filing is a First Amended Complaint, which notes that counterclaims have been filed by the Defendants. The dispute arises from a prior business relationship where the individual defendants allegedly worked as consultants for the Plaintiff under non-disclosure and consulting agreements. While the complaint makes factual allegations of patent infringement, it does not plead a formal, separate count for patent infringement, focusing its enumerated claims for relief on trade secrets, breach of contract, and other state law torts.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-08-26 | Defendant Black and Science Medical enter into a Non-Disclosure and Confidentiality Agreement. |
| 2015-09-01 | Priority date for U.S. Patent No. 9,820,905. |
| 2015-11-16 | Defendant Black and Science Medical enter into first Consulting Agreement. |
| 2016-01-13 | Defendant Black and Science Medical enter into second Consulting Agreement. |
| 2016-01-28 | Defendant Campbell and Science Medical enter into a Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement and a Noncompete Agreement. |
| 2017-02-01 | Defendant Black allegedly left his consultant position at Science Medical (approximate date). |
| 2017-04-01 | Defendant Campbell allegedly left her consultant position at Science Medical (approximate date). |
| 2017-11-21 | U.S. Patent No. 9,820,905 issues. |
| 2019-01-07 | Plaintiff files First Amended Complaint. |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,820,905 - “Bed Sheet Lift System”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the risk of injury to medical personnel (e.g., back, knee, and wrist injuries) and to patients when standard, unreinforced bed sheets are used to lift and reposition individuals, noting that many healthcare facilities have instituted "zero-lift programs" to prevent such incidents (’905 Patent, col. 1:11-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-component bed sheet system designed to solve this problem by incorporating a "support structure," such as an integrated webbing grid, that is coupled to the sheet layers (’905 Patent, Abstract). This structure reinforces the sheet and provides secure attachment points for handles, which allows for the safe transport of even heavy patients by distributing lifting forces across the sheet and reducing strain on caregivers (’905 Patent, col. 6:25-31).
- Technical Importance: The patented approach provides an engineered, purpose-built device for patient transfer that seeks to overcome the structural and ergonomic insufficiencies of using conventional bedding for a physically demanding medical task (’905 Patent, col. 1:22-28).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’905 Patent are asserted. The analysis below focuses on independent Claim 1 as a representative claim.
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’905 Patent requires:
- A "first sheet" with defined parallel horizontal and vertical edges where the horizontal length is greater than the vertical length.
- A "second sheet" that is smaller than the first sheet and has a specific "octagonal shape" resulting from four "chamfered corners".
- A "support structure" comprising "horizontal members" and "vertical members" with dimensions constrained relative to the first and second sheets.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is the "SecurLyft" bed sheet lift system (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the SecurLyft product is a "bed sheet lift system" and a "direct copy" of Plaintiff's product (Compl. ¶¶13, 31). It is marketed by a company allegedly formed by Plaintiff's former consultants to compete directly with the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶23, 29). A photograph included in the complaint depicts a green sheet, branded "SECUR LYFT," positioned under a person lying on a bed, with a user handling one of the sheet's integrated straps (Compl. p.4). The complaint alleges Defendants import, develop, manufacture, use, and sell this system in the United States (Compl. ¶13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’905 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first sheet have two substantially parallel horizontal edges having a first length, and two substantially parallel vertical edges having a second length, the first length being greater than the second length; | The accused SecurLyft product is a bed sheet lift system, which the complaint alleges is a "direct copy" of Plaintiff's patented product, suggesting it includes a similar base sheet layer. | ¶¶13, 31 | col. 13:48-62 |
| a second sheet having two substantially parallel horizontal edges...the second sheet further comprising four chamfered corners, wherein the second sheet comprises an octagonal shape; | The complaint alleges the accused product is a "direct copy," implying a multi-layer construction. However, the complaint provides no specific evidence that the SecurLyft product contains an inner sheet, let alone one with an octagonal shape. | ¶31 | col. 13:34-47 |
| a support structure comprising horizontal members and vertical members, said horizontal members having a maximum horizontal length that is greater than the third length and less than the first length, and said vertical members having a maximum vertical length that is greater than the fourth length and less than the second length. | The complaint's photograph shows the accused product has integrated straps for lifting, which suggests the presence of a reinforcing support structure. The "direct copy" allegation implies this structure has the claimed characteristics. | ¶¶13, 31; p.4 | col. 14:35-46 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A principal issue for infringement will be whether the term "octagonal shape", as required for the "second sheet" in Claim 1, can be read onto the accused SecurLyft product. The complaint provides no evidence to support the presence of this highly specific geometric feature.
- Technical Questions: What factual evidence supports the conclusory allegation that the SecurLyft product is a "direct copy"? The infringement analysis will depend on whether discovery shows the accused product actually contains the claimed three-part layered construction ("first sheet", "second sheet", "support structure") with the specific relative dimensions and geometry recited in Claim 1.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "second sheet... comprising an octagonal shape"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in independent Claim 1 and recites a very specific geometry. The viability of an infringement theory based on this claim will likely depend on whether the accused product can be shown to meet this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term as a potential point of non-infringement if the accused product lacks this precise shape.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to offer significant support for a broad interpretation, as the language is specific. A party might argue for some degree of variance from a perfect octagon if the purpose of the shape is maintained, but this would be an uphill battle against the plain language.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself is explicit. The specification reinforces a narrow, literal interpretation by depicting this exact shape in Figure 10 (element 906) and describing its dimensions, such as hemmed diagonal corners (’905 Patent, Fig. 10; col. 13:42-47).
The Term: "support structure"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core reinforcing component of the invention. Its construction will determine whether a simple series of straps is sufficient to meet the claim, or if a more complex, integrated grid is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Dependent Claim 2 describes the support structure as comprising a "plurality of webbing strips," which could support an argument that discrete straps suffice (’905 Patent, cl. 2).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Independent Claim 1 requires the structure to comprise both "horizontal members" and "vertical members". The preferred embodiment shown in Figure 13 (element 908) depicts these members as an integrated, grid-like webbing. A party could argue the claim requires such a two-dimensional grid, not just parallel straps running in one direction (’905 Patent, Fig. 13; cl. 1).
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willful patent infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A core issue will be one of claim scope versus product structure: can the highly specific geometric limitations of Claim 1, particularly the requirement for a "second sheet" with an "octagonal shape", be proven to exist in the accused SecurLyft product? The complaint's allegations of infringement appear to rest on this unproven premise.
A key evidentiary question will be one of structural equivalence: what proof will be offered to demonstrate that the accused product contains the distinct, multi-layered construction of a "first sheet," "second sheet," and grid-like "support structure" as recited in the patent's claims, moving beyond the complaint's conclusory "direct copy" allegation and single photograph?