DCT

4:18-cv-00153

Trans Radial Solutions LLC v. Phillips Safety Products Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:18-cv-00153, E.D. Va., 12/12/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the district and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ “IV Mounted Barrier” products infringe a patent related to a radiation shield assembly designed to attach to medical equipment.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves modular radiation shields that attach to existing equipment in medical procedure rooms, such as IV poles, to protect staff from scatter radiation.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior business relationship where Defendant Burlington Medical was a distributor for Plaintiff's products, during which it gained access to product information. Plaintiff alleges sending a letter on September 20, 2016, providing notice of its pending patent application and objecting to the sale of the accused products. The complaint also includes allegations of copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and unfair competition based on the same course of conduct.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-10-15 Plaintiff and Defendant Burlington enter Distribution Agreement
2014-12-04 '346 Patent Priority Date
2015-05-01 Defendant Fox Three acquires Defendant Burlington (approx.)
2016-01-01 Plaintiff discovers Defendants' alleged infringement (approx.)
2016-09-11 Plaintiff's '031 Copyright Registration issued
2016-09-20 Plaintiff sends letter objecting to accused product
2017-10-24 U.S. Patent No. 9,795,346 issues
2018-12-12 Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,795,346 - “Radiation Shield Assembly”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the problem of medical personnel receiving unnecessary doses of scatter radiation when they must approach a patient during fluoroscopy procedures, for example, to administer medication from an intravenous (IV) pole. It also notes that adding more standalone equipment to solve this problem contributes to clutter in already crowded procedure rooms ('346 Patent, col. 1:12-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a modular radiation shield that can be quickly and easily attached to existing "medical device hangars," such as an IV pole. The shield features at least two connection assemblies, such as clamps, that are offset from the shield's surface. This offset design creates space, allowing other necessary medical equipment to remain attached to the pole without interference, thereby providing radiation protection without adding to room clutter ('346 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:40-42). Figure 1 of the patent illustrates the shield (12) attached to an IV pole (18) via mounting assemblies (14, 16), with other medical equipment (7) co-located on the pole ('346 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach was intended to reduce radiation exposure to circulating staff, which could extend their careers, while simultaneously reducing equipment clutter and associated costs in a clinical setting ('346 Patent, col. 1:45-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 16 ('346 Patent, Compl. ¶76).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 16 are:
    • A radiation guard with a first and second face and interposed radiopaque material of a specified thickness (between about 0.2 mm and 2 mm).
    • At least two connection assemblies on the guard configured to adjustably connect the guard to a medical device hangar, with the guard and hangar spaced apart.
    • At least one connection assembly is adapted to be coupled to the hangar in various configurations, including substantially vertical, substantially horizontal, and inverted positions.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but focuses its infringement count on claim 16.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are the "IV Mounted Barrier" radiation shields manufactured, marketed, and sold by Defendants Burlington Medical and Phillips Safety Products (Compl. ¶¶42, 44, 54).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused IV Mounted Barriers are described as radiation shields with connection assemblies for attachment to medical equipment like IV poles (Compl. ¶77). The complaint alleges these products are direct copies of Plaintiff's "Rad-Guard™" radiation shield and are sold to the same customers in direct competition (Compl. ¶¶43-44). The complaint provides photographs of the accused product, showing a flat shield panel with two clamps on its rear face for mounting (Compl. ¶¶55, 66). A photograph from a Burlington sales brochure shows the product attached to an IV pole. (Compl. ¶33).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'346 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 16) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a. a radiation guard having a first face and a second face and a radiopaque material interposed therebetween, the radiopaque material being between about 0.2 mm to about 2 mm in thickness; The accused IV Mounted Barriers are alleged to include radiation guards with radiopaque material. The complaint cites Defendants' marketing materials advertising "0.5mm lead foil for scatter radiation protection" and includes a photograph purporting to show this material inside the shield. ¶¶57, 77 col. 10:33-39
b. at least two connection assemblies operably disposed on the radiation guard, the connection assemblies being configured to adjustably connect the radiation guard to a medical device hangar, the radiation guard and the medical device hangar being spaced apart from each other; and The complaint includes photographs showing the accused barriers have two connection assemblies (clamps) attached to the rear face of the shield, which are spaced apart from one another and configured to connect to a medical device hangar like an IV pole. ¶¶55, 56, 66, 77 col. 10:40-45
c. wherein at least one of the connection assemblies is adapted to be coupled to a connection member of the medical device hangar such that the radiation guard is in a configuration selected from the group consisting of a substantially vertical alignment..., a substantially horizontal alignment..., and an inverted position... The complaint alleges that the accused product is a direct copy of the patented invention and includes photographs showing it mounted in a vertical alignment. The complaint does not provide specific evidence of the accused product being used in horizontal or inverted configurations. ¶¶56, 77 col. 10:46-56

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the term "medical device hangar." While the complaint alleges attachment to IV poles, a defendant could argue that the term as used in the patent contemplates a more specific or complex structure. However, the patent specification explicitly lists an "intravenous (IV) pole" as an example of a "hangar" ('346 Patent, col. 3:27-28), which may limit the viability of such an argument.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's evidence for element 16(c) appears to rest heavily on the allegation of direct copying. A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused product's connection assemblies are "adapted to be coupled" in all three claimed configurations (vertical, horizontal, inverted). The complaint provides visual evidence of vertical mounting, such as a photograph of the accused Burlington IV Mounted Barrier. (Compl. ¶55). The defense may challenge whether the accused product is, in fact, adapted for the other two claimed configurations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "medical device hangar"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the environment of use and the structure to which the patented assembly connects. Its construction is central because it determines the scope of infringing installations. Practitioners may focus on this term to either broaden or narrow the field of applicable medical equipment.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states, "The hangar 18 may include a pole or rod 20, a base or stand 22, and one or more wheels 24. Alternatively, the hangar 18 can be an intravenous (IV) pole..." ('346 Patent, col. 3:25-28). This language suggests "hangar" is a broad term encompassing common equipment like IV poles.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the word "hangar" implies a primary function of hanging multiple items, and might point to figures like Fig. 1, which shows the pole (18) holding other equipment (7), to argue that the term requires more than a bare pole.

  • The Term: "adapted to be coupled... in a configuration selected from the group consisting of a substantially vertical alignment..., a substantially horizontal alignment..., and an inverted position"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the functional capability and versatility of the connection assemblies. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused product's design inherently possesses all three of these capabilities.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes these configurations as different orientations of the shield relative to the hangar ('346 Patent, col. 2:25-30). A party could argue that any clamp mechanism that allows a rectangular shield to be attached to a vertical pole along either its longer or shorter side, and to be flipped over, meets the definition of "adapted."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes asymmetric spacing of the connection assemblies to facilitate different orientations ('346 Patent, col. 5:32-42). A party could argue that "adapted" requires a specific design feature that facilitates these different configurations, not just the theoretical possibility of attaching it in various ways. The complaint includes a photograph comparing the allegedly "inferior quality" and "eccentric connection" of the defendants' mounting assembly to the plaintiff's "genuine assembly," suggesting a functional difference may exist. (Compl. ¶70).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by claiming Defendants provide instructions to users on how to use the accused products, specifically referencing sales brochures created for the infringing IV Mounted Barriers (Compl. ¶¶63, 83).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. It cites a pre-existing distributor relationship where Defendants allegedly gained knowledge of the technology (Compl. ¶29), a September 2016 letter from Plaintiff notifying Defendants of the pending patent (Compl. ¶47), and Defendants' alleged continued infringement after the patent issued and was marked on Plaintiff's products and website (Compl. ¶80). The complaint further supports willfulness allegations with side-by-side photographic comparisons purporting to show direct and intentional copying of Plaintiff's product and marketing materials (Compl. ¶¶44-45).

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

  • A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof of copying. The complaint builds a strong narrative of direct, willful copying, from the product's physical features to its marketing photography. The case may turn on whether the evidence presented substantiates this narrative of wholesale appropriation or if Defendants can establish independent design or material technical differences between their product and the patented invention.
  • Another key question will be one of functional capability. Does the accused "IV Mounted Barrier," as designed and sold, meet the claim limitation requiring that it be "adapted" for vertical, horizontal, and inverted mounting? The court's determination of this issue will likely depend on its construction of the term "adapted" and the evidence showing the actual functional range of the accused product's connection assemblies.