DoseLogix, LLC v. Reflex Medical Corp.
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:21-cv-01275
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 33
DoseLogix v. Reflex Medical, Judge Tostrud construed patent terms and denied both parties’ requests for reply briefs as moot.
DoseLogix, LLC and Reflex Medical Corp.; the order defines the patent terms that will govern the parties’ infringement dispute and denies both parties’ requests for additional reply briefing as moot.
What happened
DoseLogix, LLC v. Reflex Medical Corp. concerns DoseLogix’s two patents for dosing dispensers and its belief that Reflex’s UnoDose applicator infringes them. The parties asked the court to define several patent-claim terms before trial.
The court adopted the parties’ agreed definitions and resolved eight remaining disputes. It left several terms undefined because their ordinary meanings were clear, held that an anti-back rotation assembly must resist backward rotation, and defined “proximate” as near or close to the driver.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud also ruled that evidence and arguments not disclosed in the parties’ required claim-construction filing would not be considered. He denied both parties’ requests to file reply briefs as moot; the opinion did not decide whether Reflex infringed the patents.
The detailed version
- DoseLogix, LLC v. Reflex Medical Corp. · No. 0:21-cv-01275
- Eric Tostrud
- Nov. 10, 2022
Background
DoseLogix owns U.S. Patent Nos. 10,919,685 and 10,947,027, which concern dosing dispensers for flowable compositions. Reflex makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, and imports medical dosing dispensers, including the UnoDose Metered-Dose Topical Applicator. DoseLogix alleges that Reflex’s activities infringe one or more patent claims.
This opinion addresses claim construction, the process by which a court defines the meaning and scope of patent claims. The parties initially disputed fourteen claim terms, but agreed on additional terms during briefing and oral argument, leaving eight terms for the court to resolve.
Motions about reply briefs
Each party asked for permission to file a reply addressing material raised in the other party’s response. DoseLogix wanted to respond to Reflex’s newly raised argument that “driver” and “traveler” were means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), a patent-law rule that can require a claim term to be tied to the structure disclosed in the patent. Reflex asked the court not to consider the declaration DoseLogix submitted with its responsive brief.
The court held that the new arguments and evidence had not been identified in the parties’ Joint Claim Construction Statement, as required by the pretrial schedule. Because the court would not consider those undisclosed materials, it found the requests for reply briefs moot. The court therefore denied DoseLogix’s motion for leave to file a reply and denied Reflex’s motion for leave to file a reply or surreply Markman brief, both as moot.
Claim constructions
The court adopted the parties’ agreed constructions, including constructions for terms concerning an arm extending outward from a driver, an object’s outer perimeter, a plunger’s ability to engage a traveler, a traveler engaging a plunger, a clicking profile, and a cam. The court also accepted the parties’ agreement that no construction was needed for “arms including an engagement end configured to engage one of a plurality of slots.”
For the eight disputed terms, the court ruled as follows:
- “Dosing dispenser”: No further construction was required. The ordinary meaning inherently implies delivery of a measured amount. - “Flowable composition”: No further construction was required. The ordinary meaning is capable of flowing or being flowed, consistent with the specification’s examples, including creams, gels, suspensions, solutions, and liquids with positive viscosity. - “Driver”: No further construction was required. The term was not limited to a “drive screw,” even though the specification described drive-screw embodiments. - “Traveler”: No further construction was required. The term retained its ordinary meaning and was not limited to a drive nut with internal threads. - “Traveler is retained within the chamber when the dosing dispenser is assembled such that the first end and second end are within the chamber”: No further construction was required. The ordinary meaning makes clear that, when assembled, the traveler is retained in the chamber with both ends inside it. - “Anti-back rotation assembly”: The term means “parts that are operable to resist backward rotation.” The court rejected Reflex’s proposed requirement that the assembly prevent rotation in every direction except one. - “Traveler is configured to selectively position the plunger at a predetermined location . . . so as to dispense a predetermined quantity of a flowable composition”: No further construction was required. “Predetermined” has its ordinary meaning of determined beforehand, but the court rejected DoseLogix’s proposed addition that the location and quantity could not be altered during operation. - “Arm extends . . . from an arm location proximate the driver”: The term means that “the arm extends . . . from an arm location near or close to the driver.” The court rejected DoseLogix’s proposed narrower wording requiring the location to be very near or immediately adjacent.
Order and effect
The order construed the terms of the two patents as described in the opinion and denied both parties’ motions for leave to file reply briefing as moot. The opinion did not determine infringement, validity, damages, or the ultimate merits of DoseLogix’s infringement allegations.
Read the full 33-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.