DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOHN R. CHOATE, CHOATE, INC., and MYCO INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Appellants,

v.

RYSURG, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, RYSURG, LLC, a 

Florida limited liability company, RYNERSON, INC., a Florida 

corporation, JAMES R. RYNERSON, and BLEPHEX, LLC, a Florida 

limited liability company,

Appellees.

No. 4D20-1475 

[November 10, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Donald Hafele, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502014CA000805XXXXMB-AG.

Christopher Kammerer of Kammerer Mariani PLLC, West Palm Beach, 

for appellants.

Matthew D. Robson of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, New York, 

New York, John C. Carey and Nicholas J. Doyle of Carey Rodriguez Milian, 

LLP, Miami, and James A. Stepan of the Law Office of James A. Stepan, 

P.A., Hollywood, for appellees.

LEVINE, J.

The parties were business partners who planned to manufacture and 

market a device that treated an ocular disorder. Appellees received a 

patent for this device. A dispute between the partners occurred and was 

subsequently resolved by settlement agreement, pursuant to which 

appellants received $162,000 and agreed not to file certain future patent 

applications. Appellants subsequently filed a patent application for an 

adapter to a device used to treat ocular disorders. Appellees then moved 

to enforce the settlement agreement claiming that appellants breached the 

settlement agreement. The trial court agreed and ordered all of the 

appellants to repay the $162,000 even though the settlement agreement 

specifically required only one of the appellants, Choate, Inc., to be 

responsible for repayment in the event of a breach. 
2

We find that the trial court correctly determined that appellants 

violated the breach language of the settlement agreement by filing a patent 

application in contravention of the settlement agreement. However, we 

also find that the trial court erred in expanding those required to 

reimburse appellees by making all appellants liable when the clear 

language of the settlement agreement made only Choate, Inc., responsible. 

In both issues we are guided, and ultimately bound, by the language of 

the settlement agreement. Thus, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

Appellee Rynerson, an ophthalmologist, developed a medical device for 

treating blepharitis, a disease that causes eyelid inflammation. After filing 

patent application number 13/939,365 (“365 application”), Rynerson 

received a patent for his device, which was known as the BlephEx. Before 

receiving the patent, Rynerson met with appellant Choate and discussed 

forming a business to manufacture and market the BlephEx. Together, 

they formed a new company, RySurg. A dispute later arose between the 

parties, resulting in Choate’s departure from RySurg and the parties filing 

a lawsuit against each other. 

During the pendency of the lawsuit, Choate filed two patent 

applications: patent application number 14/229,275 (“275 application”) 

and patent application number 14/174,608 (“608 application”). The 275 

application was entitled “Method and Device for Treating an Ocular 

Disorder.” It described “[a] device for the removal of a debris from an eye” 

comprising of “a chuck connected to and rotatably driven by said 

mechanical drive unit, . . . said instrument comprising: a swab having a 

tip portion . . . .” Choate admitted that the 275 application was essentially 

a duplicate of the BlephEx patent. The 608 application was entitled 

“Method and Apparatus for Ultrasonic Eye Cleaner.” That application 

described “an ultrasonic eye cleaning device . . . comprising a chuck driven 

by the rotating output member of the motor” and “an instrument having a 

tip that is attachable to the chuck and defining a free end forming a 

cleaning swab.” 

The parties entered a settlement agreement resolving the lawsuit. 

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, BlephEx agreed to pay Choate, Inc.,

$162,000. In exchange, appellants agreed to abandon the 275 and 608

applications and further agreed not to “file any additional patent 

application directed to the particular ‘subject matter disclosed’ (as that 

phrase is construed in U.S. patent law) in the ’275 Application or the ’608

Application . . . .” Finally, the agreement provided that, in the event of a 

breach, “Choate, Inc. shall be obligated to refund to Blephex, LLC” the 

$162,000 payment. Based on the settlement agreement, the trial court 
3

dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, retaining jurisdiction to enforce the 

terms of the agreement and release. 

Appellees subsequently moved to enforce the settlement agreement and 

release, alleging that Choate had breached the settlement by filing a new 

patent application: patent application number 15/845,742 (“742 

application”). The 742 application was entitled “Adapter Kit for a Battery 

Powered Rotary Tool, a Rotary Tool, and a Rotary Swab.” The background 

of the application stated that “[s]mall handheld battery powered rotary 

tools are used . . . by . . . ophthalmologists.” The summary of the 

application referred to an “adapter kit” with a “rotary foam swab tip 

adapted to connect to a rotary collet connected to the electric motor 

upward shaft.” Two “claims” in the description section of the application 

sought to protect “[a]n adapter kit for a battery powered ophthalmic rotary 

tool for treating an eyelid, the rotary tool having a tubular housing 

containing a motor and a battery” that operates to “remove debris from an 

eyelid . . . .” Although the application originally claimed three inventions—

an adapter kit, a rotary foam swab, and a battery powered rotary tool—

Choate later elected to proceed only with the adapter kit. The 742

application led to the issuance of patent number 10,404,203 (“203 

patent”). 

Appellees argued that the 275 and 608 applications and the 742 

application involved the same subject matter—mechanical devices with 

swabs for removing debris from a person’s eye—and therefore Choate’s 

filing of the 742 application was a breach of the settlement agreement. 

Appellants responded that the claims of the 742 application were directed 

to an adapter kit, which was not even mentioned in the 275 and 608 

applications. 

During an evidentiary hearing, Rynerson testified that the BlephEx and 

Choate’s competitor product, the AB Max, function the same way. They 

both spin a sponge along the lid margin to debride the biofilm. Rynerson 

further testified that they “do the same thing” and are “marketed to do the 

same thing.” In a marketing video that was published to the court, Choate 

referred to the AB Max as a second-generation device that does a better 

job than the first-generation device, the BlephEx. 

Choate testified that the 742 application was for an adapter for the 

Algerbrush, an already existing third-party product. Choate explained 

that his product pulses, whereas the BlephEx turns only in forward and 

reverse. Additionally, the design for the adapter replaced the AA battery. 

The trial court found that “the 742 and the eventual 203 patent, did 
4

breach paragraph four because the subject matter disclosed as far as the 

Court is concerned, is sufficiently tied to the specific subject matter 

disclosed, and the 275 and 608 applications.” Based upon the testimony, 

video, case law, and other materials, the trial court concluded that “a fair 

reading of the breach section” is that “the nexus has been met between the 

742 application and the resulting 203 patent to the subject matter 

disclosed within the 275 and the 608 applications and resulting patents, 

so as to breach the paragraph at issue.” 

The trial court entered a written final judgment ordering that appellees 

recover from appellants, jointly and severally, $162,000 plus prejudgment 

interest for a total of $172,113.92. Appellants appealed. 

1.Was There a Breach of the Settlement Agreement?

Although many of the facts of this case involve the original patents filed 

by appellees and later by appellants, at its core this case revolves around 

the interpretation of the settlement agreement. We review and interpret a 

contract under the de novo standard of review. Klinow v. Island Court at 

Boca W. Prop. Owners’ Ass’n, 64 So. 3d 177, 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). 

Factual determinations must be supported by competent substantial 

evidence. Id.

We review settlement agreements “in accordance with principles of

contract law.” Per Jonas Ingvar Gustafsson v. Aid Auto Brokers, Inc., 212 

So. 3d 405, 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). Of course, “[w]hen interpreting a 

contract, a court should give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of 

its terms.” Id. (citation omitted). Finally, and equally obvious, “[c]ourts 

may not rewrite contracts, add meaning that is not present, or otherwise 

reach results contrary to the intentions of the parties.” Id. (citation 

omitted). 

In this case, the dispute centers on the language of the settlement 

agreement and specifically the language regarding potential breaches, 

which states as follows: 

4. Breach. In the event any of the Choate Parties, or any 

related entity or any entity that the Choate Parties own an 

interest in, fails to expressly abandon the ’275 Application or 

the ’608 Application pursuant to paragraph 5 or if the Choate 

Parties, or any related entity or any entity that the Choate 

Parties own an interest in, should file any additional patent 

application directed to the particular “subject matter disclosed”

(as that phrase is construed in U.S. patent law) in the ’275 
5

Application or the ’608 Application then, in addition to any 

other remedies available at law or in equity, if not cured within 

30 days of receiving notice of breach, Blephex, LLC’s payment 

obligations shall immediately cease and Choate, Inc. shall be 

obligated to refund to Blephex, LLC any and all payments 

made under the Settlement Agreement, as amended.

(emphasis added). 

Appellants argue that the patent claim in the 742 application, which is 

only the adapter kit, does not overlap with the subject matter of the 275 

and 608 applications, which involve the mechanical device that removes 

debris from the eye. Appellees, on the other hand, state that although the 

patents may be different, the settlement agreement involves more than just 

protection for the patent itself, but rather the whole subject matter 

disclosed. 

The subject matter disclosed differs from the actual patent claim. The 

subject matter disclosed refers to that which is described in a patent or 

patent application’s specifications. See Catch Curve, Inc. v. Venali, Inc., 

363 Fed. Appx. 19, 22 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The subject matter is determined 

“upon the whole face of the specification and the accompanying drawings.” 

Bates v. Coe, 98 U.S. 31, 38-39 (1878). The specification includes the 

“[b]ackground of the invention,” a “[d]etailed description of the invention,” 

and a “[b]rief description of the several views of the drawing.” 37 C.F.R. § 

1.77; see also MPEP § 608.01 (setting forth the requirements of the 

specification per the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure). “The 

specification must include a written description of the invention or 

discovery and of the manner and process of making and using the same, 

and is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to 

enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention or 

discovery appertains . . . to make and use the same.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.71(a). 

A patent claim, in contrast, defines the invention that is sought to be 

protected. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014); 

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996); see also 

Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co., 339 U.S. 605, 607 (1950)

(defining the parameters of a claim by noting that when determining if “an 

accused device or composition infringes a valid patent, resort must be had 

in the first instance to the words of the claim. If accused matter falls 

clearly within the claim, infringement is made out and that is the end of 

it.”) (Jackson, J., majority opinion). Thus, the subject matter disclosed in 

a patent application is broader than the claim. ArcelorMittal France v. AK 

Steel Corp., 700 F. 3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 
6

We find that when the breach provision of the settlement agreement

refers to “any additional patent application directed to the particular 

‘subject matter disclosed,’” that provision covered all that would be 

encompassed within the “subject matter disclosed.” In other words, the 

breach provision would cover all that is described in the application or 

contained within the “whole face of the specification and the accompanying 

drawings.” Bates, 98 U.S. at 38-39. This particular language would have 

a broader scope to cover not only the claim but also everything described 

in the application and specifications.

This broad language of “subject matter disclosed” differs from “claim,” 

which describes only that which is protected by the patent. Appellants 

argue that the filing of a patent for the adapter did not breach the 

settlement agreement since the adapter, which attaches to the medical 

device, is clearly different than the medical device for treating an ocular 

disorder. However, we are guided by the language of the settlement 

agreement. The settlement agreement states that appellants would breach 

if they “file any additional patent application directed to the particular 

‘subject matter disclosed.’” Thus, we would look at the entire patent 

application which includes all the background for the medical device that 

the adapter would be used with. Clearly, by looking at the entire 

application, and all that is understood to be part of the “subject matter 

disclosed,” there is a significant overlap with that which was part of the 

initial patent application for appellees’ medical device. 

If appellants wanted the ability to file a separate patent for the adapter, 

realizing that the entire application and background would be part of the 

patent application for the adapter, then the settlement agreement should 

have had language that would not have prohibited the “subject matter 

disclosed” as part of the breach language. The settlement agreement 

should have limited its reach to appellees’ prior “claim” and not included 

appellees’ “subject matter disclosed.”

2. Which Party Pays for the Breach?

The trial court entered a judgment for $162,000 plus prejudgment 

interest against all appellants even though the settlement agreement 

expressly limited liability to Choate, Inc. Paragraph 4 of the settlement 

agreement states that if any of the appellants breach the agreement, 

“Choate, Inc. shall be obligated to refund to BlephEx, LLC” the $162,000 

payment made under this settlement agreement. This agreement made no 

mention of the other appellants, like Choate individually or Myco 

Industries, being liable for the return of the $162,000. 
7

Appellees rely on language in the settlement agreement that the return 

of the $162,000 is “in addition to any other remedies available at law or in 

equity.” This language appears to allow appellees other remedies at law or 

in equity for the breach of the settlement agreement, in addition to the 

return of the $162,000. It does not mean that we can rewrite the 

settlement agreement to include Choate individually and Myco Industries. 

In Dinuro Investments, LLC v. Camacho, 141 So. 3d 731, 742 (Fla. 3d 

DCA 2014), the court found that the language in the settlement agreement 

allowing the pursuit of “any other remedies available at law or equity” 

simply meant that a party “may pursue additional remedies consistent 

with Florida statutory and common law.” We reject reading the settlement 

agreement to include Choate individually and Myco Industries because if 

we were to read those parties into the breach language, we would be 

rendering the actual language of the settlement limiting liability to Choate, 

Inc., into mere surplusage. Fla. Inv. Grp. 100, LLC v. Lafont, 271 So. 3d 1, 

5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (“[N]o word or part of an agreement is to be treated 

as a redundancy or surplusage if any meaning, reasonable and consistent 

with other parts, can be given to it . . . .”) (citation omitted). 

The record is devoid of any allegations or evidence why Choate 

individually or Myco Industries should be liable. There is no evidence of 

alter ego or piercing the corporate veil. Even though Choate as an 

individual and Myco Industries were also parties to the settlement 

agreement, and appellees alleged after the evidentiary hearing that Choate, 

Inc., was dissolved, none of that allows the trial court to change the 

settlement agreement negotiated among themselves. 

Appellees claim that it would not be “just and fair” and that it would be 

“inequitable” to hold only Choate, Inc., liable for return of the funds. 

Nevertheless, if appellees wanted Choate as an individual and Myco 

Industries to be liable with Choate, Inc., they should have negotiated that 

to be included in the final settlement agreement. Like we stated previously 

in Section 1 of this opinion, when interpreting a contract, we “should give 

effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of its terms” and “[c]ourts may 

not rewrite contracts, add meaning that is not present, or otherwise reach 

results contrary to the intentions of the parties.” Per Jonas Ingvar 

Gustafsson, 212 So. 3d at 408 (citation omitted).

In conclusion, we find that the trial court correctly determined that 

appellants breached the plain language of the settlement agreement and 

therefore are liable for the return of the $162,000 plus interest to 

appellees. Thus, we affirm the finding of breach of the settlement 
8

agreement. We also find that the trial court erred by adding parties to

those who would be liable for the return of the monies where, according to 

the plain language of the settlement agreement, only Choate, Inc., was 

liable for any breach of the settlement agreement. Accordingly, we reverse 

and remand for the trial court to vacate that portion of the judgment 

holding Choate individually and Myco Industries liable.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

WARNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.