Homework 9: Patent Liability Analysis Due: Thursday, October 27, at Classtime

Transcription

1 Homework 9: Patent Liability Analysis Due: Thursday, October 27, at Classtime Team Code Name: DrugLords Group No. 9 Team Member Completing This Homework: Clifton Barnes NOTE: This is the second in a series of four professional component homework assignments, each of which is to be completed by one team member. The completed homework will count for 10% of the team member s individual grade. It should be a minimum of five printed pages. Report Outline: Introduction (brief description of design project, with a focus on patent liability issues) Results of patent search (similar products/products that perform substantially the same function) Analysis of patent liability o Literal infringement o Infringement under doctrine of equivalents Action recommended to avoid infringement List of references (include links to manufacturers of products that are infringed) Evaluation: Component/Criterion Score Multiplier Points Introduction X 1 Results of Patent Search X 3 Analysis of Patent Liability X 3 Action Recommended X 1 List of References X 1 Technical Writing Style X 1 TOTAL

2 Introduction The purpose of this design project is to create an automatic pill dispensing mechanism for use in the home of a patient who needs help remembering to take pills. The mechanism will have two rotating chambers to dispense the needed pills. The pills will fall down a chute to a bin where the patient may receive the pills. Two options may be utilized by the caretaker to schedule and monitor the dispensing of the pills. The first option is a rotary dial and an LCD screen physically located on the pill dispenser. Through a series of menus, the caretaker can program the times to dispense and which spindle to utilize to drop the pills. The second option is through a web server running on the microcontroller in the pill dispenser. The caretaker may program when the pills will be dropped and from which carousel using a simple html interface. Sensors are located in the bin and in the carousel to give feedback as to whether the pills had been taken or the pills are running low. Patent Search A thorough patent search, using the USPTO website ( yielded many results related to an pill dispensing mechanism [1]. Many were remarkably similar. The majority involved a microcontroller to keep track of time and date and all used a circular holding apparatus for the pills. Table 1 shows the individual patents that are similar to the project being created. Following the table is a brief summary of each of the patents being discussed.

3 U.S. Patent Number Description 6,304,797 Automated medication dispenser with remote patient monitoring system 6,471,087 Remote patient monitoring system with garment and automated medication dispenser 5,571,258 Semi automated medication dispenser 6,848,593 Automated portable medication radial dispensing apparatus and method using a carrier tape 6,021,918 Programmable dispenser for medication 5,720,154 Enhanced drug dispensing system 6,098,835 Child resistant pill rotating disk dispenser 6,581,797 Pill dispenser with reminder Table 1. Patent Search Results The first patent listed in Table 1 most closely matches the project being designed. That particular patent calls for an automatic pill dispenser that uses a rotating carousel to drop pills into a tray. Also, a microcontroller is utilized to keep track of time and date and determine when pills should be dispensed. Furthermore, included in the patent is the ability to connect the unit to a computer for programming. Security precautions are taken by a locking mechanism covering the receiving tray. The second patent listed in Table 1includes many of the same features as the first patent except for the added ability to monitor the patient. A carousel, microcontroller, and dispensing drawer are used to dispense the medication. Additionally, a garment was designed to be worn by the patient to sense vital signs in the patient. This patent was a continuation of the first patent in Table 1. The next patent expanded upon patents given to the individual who was given this patent. The idea is a dispensing mechanism that is controlled in a hospital by a computer. The mechanism can be used for multiple patients at the same time. The nurse has to enter a password to change any settings including dose amounts and times. Also, a password is required to access

4 the bins for inserting the medication. This patent is a very broad idea which fails to get into any of the mechanics of the operation. Next in the table is a patent which very closely resembles the previous patents. A microcontroller also controls a radial dispensing apparatus. This particular design adds a carrier tape to be used in holding the medication. One end of the tape would connect to the other end to form a loop. This design, however, does not call for remote monitoring or any kind of display of information on the device. The next patent is again very similar to the previous patents. The dispensing is achieved by a central motor driven disk with openings on the bottom of each compartment. Pills drop through an opening to a delivery drawer. The dispenser includes an ability to set the delivery times for the dispensing events, a timer and various signal means to indicate dispensing including flasher, voice message, and beeper, or vibrator. However, the patent does not state how the device is programed or what is programed. Next in Table 1 is a patent on a product that is a little different than the others. The objective of this device is to dispense pills into vials rather than to a patient. This dispenser counts and sorts pills into vials. Then the vial is labeled using a label from a computer controlled printer. Following the way that many patents so far have gone, the next patent adds child proofing to the same basic concept of using a rotating disk to dispense pills. The main difference in this design is the lack of programmability. No microcontroller is present and the pills must be dispensed manually. A rotating knob is used to advance the disk and dispense the needed pills. The final patent to be analyzed is a pill dispenser that has only a reminder. The individual would be reminded that it is time to take the pills by visual or audio means. Pills are dispensed in a removable container. The individual in this case is able to program the device. It appears that this device would be used for the convience of the individual and not as a necessity for patients who need to be reminded and to take the correct pills.

5 Analysis of Patent Liability It is apparent that many patents already exist for products that are very similar to what is being designed in this project. Many people have seen the need for such a device in a hospital or house setting. With the advancement in digital design and the availability of many different microcontrollers, this type of device has become very practical. In the case of literal infringement, the first patent in Table 1 must be analyzed first. The automatic pill dispensing mechanism being designed and the mechanism being presented in this patent are almost identical. Both have a rotating container to dispense the pills into a tray. Both have a microcontroller to keep track of the time and date. Both have the ability to program through a port connected to a computer. The only real difference between the two is the web server and the LCD screen included in the product being designed. As stated in class, simply adding to what is already patented is not enough to avoid infringement. Because of this fact, there is clearly literal infringement on this particular patent. Literal infringement in the rest of the patents would be based mostly on the circular dispensing behavior and the programmability of the device. Since the designs for the rest of the product are not exactly the same, literal infringement would not be an issue. Doctrine of equivalents makes the patent analysis very complex. At the most basic, all of the patents are dispensers and most can dispense based on a schedule. However, since all were given patents, then obviously the small differences were enough to be deemed not equivalent. This current project could be seen as being very similar to the patents involving a rotating pill container that uses gravity to dispense pills into a bin. However, this idea is very general and can be seen by many as obvious. According to class, a patent has to be non obvious, meaning that the simple dispensing apparatus would not be infringement. A similar product that exists commercially is from epill [2]. The MD2 Automatic Pill Dispenser interfaces with a telephone to alert caregivers of medication not being taken or running low. This product also has an LCD interface and keeps track of time and date to

6 dispense pills. A patent number was not found on the website, but this product is an example of a product actually being made rather than just a patent. Again, there are not enough similarities to warrant infringement. Although quite a few patents exist for similar products, most have enough differences that there would be no obvious infringement. However, one patent stands out more than all the rest. The Automated medication dispenser with remote patient monitoring system has the same type of dispensing apparatus, the same ability to interface with a computer, and the same monitoring system. No one could overlook the obvious literal infringement in this particular case. Action to Avoid Infringement Since there exists literal infringement on one of the patents, the only action would be to pay the royalty fees associated with that particular patent. The entire project would have to be redesigned in order to avoid infringement which is not an option at this point. The fact that this design has the ability to monitor how many pills remain, whether the patient has taken the pills, and the ability to program over the internet does make it somewhat unique. This project would not be infringing on any of the other patents because of the differences in programmability and monitoring. If this product needed to be made available commercially, redesign would have to occur to change enough of the project to avoid infringement. The best way to avoid infringement, however, would be to investigate patents during the early design stages of the product. Paying royalities is usually not the best course of action. Designing around patents from the beginning assures no patent liability or lengthy court cases to decide whether or not the product can be marketed.

7 References [1]All patent information gathered from Patent Numbers: 6,304,797 6,471,087 5,571,258 6,848,593 6,021,918 5,720,154 6,098,835 6,581,797 [2] MD2 Automatic Pill Dispenser