DCT

2:24-cv-00176

Denneroll Holdings Pty Ltd v. Chirolux LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00176, E.D. Wash., 06/28/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as all defendants are residents of the Eastern District of Washington, conduct business in the district, and have allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "ChiroLux Curv" spinal orthotic device infringes a patent related to orthotic devices designed for cervical spine support and correction.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns orthotic devices used by individuals in a supine position to apply a therapeutic stretch to the neck, aiming to address abnormal cervical curvature (lordosis).
  • Key Procedural History: The filing is a First Amended Complaint which also includes Plaintiff's Answer to Defendant's Counterclaims for noninfringement and invalidity. The complaint alleges that Defendants received pre-suit notice of the patent and their alleged infringement via a letter to Amazon and a subsequent infringement report filed through Amazon's system in 2023. These allegations may form the basis for the willfulness claim.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-09-21 '440 Patent Priority Date
2022-08-23 '440 Patent Issue Date
2023-05-25 Plaintiff sent letter to Amazon.com regarding infringement
2023-09-14 Plaintiff filed Allegation of Infringement via Amazon system
2024-06-28 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,419,440, "Orthotic Device," issued August 23, 2022. (Compl. ¶18; '440 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies issues with prior art neck supports, which are described as often having a "generally triangular shape" with a "sharp angle" at the apex. This design is said to apply "an excessive tractional force on the ligaments of the neck," causing "significant discomfort." (’440 Patent, col. 2:32-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an orthotic device with a multi-surface geometry designed to be more comfortable and effective. It features a "bulbous protrusion" (a primary convex surface) that supports a specific region of a patient's neck, gently stretching the spine while suspending the head above the underlying substrate. ('440 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:28-34). This design, which can include additional concave and convex surfaces, aims to provide a gradual curvature that avoids the sharp apex of prior devices and allows for targeted stretching of different neck regions. ('440 Patent, col. 2:60-63).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed design seeks to provide a more comfortable user experience and allow for more versatile application to different portions of the cervical spine compared to prior rigid, single-apex devices. ('440 Patent, col. 2:56-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "at least claim 15." (Compl. ¶¶27, 29).
  • Independent claim 15 of the '440 Patent recites:
    • An orthotic device comprising a body with a base, front and rear ends, and a support surface.
    • The support surface includes a "first convex surface" and a "concave surface," each with a specified diameter and apex.
    • The "first convex surface" is positioned between the "concave surface" and the rear end of the device.
    • The apex of the first convex surface is vertically farther from the base than the apex of the concave surface.
    • The device is configured to be placed under a supine patient's neck to support and stretch it, with the patient's head suspended rearwardly and the front end of the device in contact with the patient's shoulders.
    • A specific geometric constraint where the base's depth is "less than the sum of the first and second diameters."
  • The complaint notes that Defendants' devices may infringe "one or more claims" of the patent, reserving the right to assert others. (Compl. ¶30).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is the "ChiroLux Curv" product line. (Compl. ¶¶6-8).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The ChiroLux Curv is marketed as a "cervical denneroll style neck alignment device" and a "Cervical Neck Traction Device & Neck Posture Corrector." (Compl. ¶¶7, 13; p. 9).
  • Its alleged function is to restore the natural curve of the neck through cervical traction, thereby providing "spine alignment, spinal decompression & neck tension relief." (Compl. p. 9). The complaint includes a screenshot from the defendant's website showing the product placed under a user's neck in a supine position, which is the method of use described in the patent. (Compl. ¶26, p. 8).
  • The complaint highlights marketing language from an Amazon listing which describes the product as a "fully adjustable 3 tier Interlocking apex cervical wedge," suggesting a modular or multi-piece construction. (Compl. p. 9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit B" to demonstrate infringement but does not include the exhibit. (Compl. ¶¶27, 29). The infringement theory must therefore be summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations.

The plaintiff alleges that the ChiroLux Curv infringes at least claim 15 of the '440 Patent, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents. (Compl. ¶56). The core of the infringement theory is that the ChiroLux Curv possesses the key structural and functional features of the claimed invention. Visual evidence is used to support this theory. For example, a screenshot from the defendant's website shows a device with a prominent peak and an adjacent valley, used to support a supine user's neck while their head is suspended. (Compl. ¶26, p. 8). This visual is intended to show that the accused product has the "first convex surface" and "concave surface" and is used in the manner recited by claim 15. The Amazon product description further supports this by describing the device's purpose as a "neck curve restorer," aligning with the patent's objective. (Compl. p. 9).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Structural Questions: The accused product is described as an "adjustable 3 tier Interlocking apex cervical wedge." (Compl. p. 9). Claim 15 requires "a body." This raises a potential dispute over whether a multi-piece, adjustable product can meet the "body" limitation, which the patent figures depict as a single, unitary structure.
    • Scope Questions: Claim 15 includes a precise geometric limitation: "the depth is less than the sum of the first and second diameters." ('440 Patent, col. 9:41-43). The complaint does not provide measurements of the accused device, raising the evidentiary question of whether the Plaintiff can demonstrate that the ChiroLux Curv meets this and other specific dimensional requirements of the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a body"

    • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claim, and its construction is critical because the accused ChiroLux Curv is described as an "adjustable 3 tier Interlocking" device, which may consist of multiple separable components. (Compl. p. 9). Whether a multi-piece assembly constitutes "a body" will likely be a central point of the infringement analysis.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly state that the body must be of unitary construction. A plaintiff may argue that "a body" should be construed to mean the overall structure of the device as assembled for use, regardless of whether it is formed from one or multiple pieces.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures consistently depict the orthotic device as a single, integrated piece of material. ('440 Patent, Figs. 1, 4). The specification refers to "a body 20" and describes its features without any mention of separable or interlocking parts, which may support an argument that the inventors contemplated a unitary structure. ('440 Patent, col. 4:63-64).

  • The Term: "first convex surface"

    • Context and Importance: This is the primary functional element of the invention, responsible for supporting and stretching the patient's neck. Its construction will define the scope of the structural feature that the accused product must possess to infringe.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 15 defines the term by its position relative to other surfaces and its function to "support and stretch the patient's neck." ('440 Patent, col. 9:31-32). This functional language could support a construction that is not limited to a specific geometric shape.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a preferred embodiment where the first convex surface is part of a "bulbous protrusion" that is "substantially a half cylindrical protrusion." ('440 Patent, col. 3:28-31). A defendant may argue this specific embodiment limits the term to a more rounded, semi-cylindrical shape rather than any upward-curving surface.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). (Compl. ¶¶61-63). The factual basis for this claim includes allegations that Defendants' advertising, packaging, and an "instruction sheet" expressly encourage and instruct customers to use the ChiroLux Curv in a manner that directly infringes the '440 Patent. (Compl. ¶40). This is alleged to demonstrate the requisite intent to cause infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is willful. (Compl. ¶¶57, 63). This allegation is based on alleged pre-suit and post-suit knowledge of the patent. Pre-suit knowledge is asserted based on a letter sent to Amazon in May 2023 and a formal infringement report filed via Amazon's system in September 2023. (Compl. ¶¶31-32). The complaint further alleges that Defendants continued to make, use, and sell the accused products even after becoming aware of the original complaint in the case. (Compl. ¶¶33, 37-39).

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

  • A central issue will be one of claim construction and structural equivalence: can the Defendants' "adjustable 3 tier Interlocking" product be construed to meet the "a body" limitation of claim 15, which the patent's specification and figures consistently depict as a single, unitary structure?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of geometric proof: will the Plaintiff be able to demonstrate through expert analysis and measurement that the accused ChiroLux Curv meets the specific, quantitative relational limitations recited in claim 15, such as the requirement that the base's depth "is less than the sum of the first and second diameters"?
  • The allegations of pre-suit notice and continued sales raise a significant question regarding willful infringement: did the Defendants' alleged conduct, particularly their continued marketing of a "denneroll style" device after receiving notice of the '440 Patent, constitute the type of egregious behavior required to support a finding of willfulness and potential enhanced damages?