DCT

2:19-cv-05335

Intex Recreation Corp v. Bestway USA Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:19-cv-05335, D. Ariz., 10/04/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Bestway (USA), Inc. having a principal place of business, operating facilities, and regularly conducting business within the District of Arizona.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Tritech" line of inflatable airbeds infringes patents related to lightweight internal tensioning structures that use high-strength strands to maintain the product's shape.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns internal support structures for inflatable goods like air mattresses, aiming to reduce weight and packed volume compared to traditional designs that use solid sheets of plastic.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of intellectual property disputes between the parties, including a 2016 International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation involving related patents from the same family, which concluded with a consent order preventing Bestway from importing certain products. The complaint also alleges Bestway had pre-suit notice of the asserted patents via their publication and a formal notice letter. Subsequent to the complaint's filing, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings were concluded for both asserted patents. In IPR2020-01405, asserted claims 1 and 10 of the '186 patent were canceled. In IPR2020-01416, asserted claims 1 and 24 of the '869 patent were canceled, while asserted claim 17 was found patentable. These post-filing events significantly narrow the scope of the dispute as originally pleaded.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-03-02 Earliest Priority Date for '186 and '869 Patents
2016-05-01 ITC Complaint (Inv. No. 337-TA-1009) Filed
2016-08-18 ITC Consent Order Issued
2017-08-31 '653 Publication (leading to '186 Patent) Published
2018-02-27 '186 Patent Issued
2018-07-05 '812 Publication (leading to '869 Patent) Published
2019-01-01 '869 Patent Issued
2019-07-11 Plaintiff's Notice Letter Sent to Defendant
2019-10-04 Complaint Filed
2022-07-11 '869 Patent IPR Certificate Issued
2022-07-12 '186 Patent IPR Certificate Issued

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

II.A. U.S. Patent No. 9,901,186 - "Internal Tensioning Structure Useable With Inflatable Devices"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,901,186, "Internal Tensioning Structure Useable With Inflatable Devices," issued February 27, 2018.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Conventional inflatable products, such as airbeds, often rely on internal tension bands made of thick, solid PVC sheets to maintain a flat, rectangular shape when inflated. These solid bands contribute significantly to the product's overall weight and its compressed volume when deflated and stored (’186 Patent, col. 1:4-23).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention replaces bulky, solid tension bands with a lightweight structure composed of a "plurality of strands" (e.g., high-strength threads or wires) stretched between two opposing "weld sheets." These weld sheets are thin plastic strips that facilitate a strong, durable weld to the main surfaces of the inflatable product. The strands provide the necessary tensile strength to hold the product's shape, while their minimal volume reduces the product's weight and packed size (’186 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:26-39).
  • Technical Importance: This design allows for the creation of inflatable products that are lighter and more compact for storage and transport without sacrificing the structural integrity required to maintain a desired shape under pressure (’186 Patent, col. 1:16-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 10 (’Compl. ¶52). Both claims were subsequently canceled in IPR2020-01405.
  • The essential elements of canceled independent claim 1 include:
    • A first sheet and an opposite second sheet that define a gap when inflated.
    • A tensioning structure spanning the gap.
    • The tensioning structure comprises a plurality of uniformly spaced and substantially parallel strands.
    • The strands are affixed to a first weld sheet.
    • A second weld sheet is disposed opposite the first, with the strands "captured between" both weld sheets.
  • The complaint does not reserve the right to assert other dependent claims.

II.B. U.S. Patent No. 10,165,869 - "Internal Tensioning Structure Useable With Inflatable Devices"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,165,869, "Internal Tensioning Structure Useable With Inflatable Devices," issued January 1, 2019.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The '869 Patent addresses the same technical problem as the '186 Patent: the undesirable weight and bulk of conventional solid-sheet tensioning structures in inflatable goods (’869 Patent, col. 1:5-23).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is materially the same as in the '186 Patent, utilizing a tensioning structure made of spaced-apart strands (like strings or wires) captured between two weld sheets. This structure provides high tensile strength while facilitating a strong weld to the inflatable product, thereby reducing overall weight and volume (’869 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:28-39).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a lighter and more compact alternative to traditional internal support systems in inflatable products (’869 Patent, col. 1:16-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 24, and dependent claim 17 (’Compl. ¶69). Claims 1 and 24 were subsequently canceled in IPR2020-01416, while claim 17 survived.
  • The essential elements of canceled independent claim 1 are substantively identical to claim 1 of the '186 Patent.
  • The complaint does not reserve the right to assert other dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

III.A. Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused products as "Bestway Tritech™ products," providing the "Aerobed Luxury Collection 17 in. Twin airbed (Model No. 90609E)" as a specific example (Compl. ¶36).

III.B. Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused airbeds are inflatable products that embody the patented technology by using an internal tensioning structure that infringes the claims of the '186 and '869 patents (Compl. ¶¶36-39). The complaint does not provide specific technical details regarding the internal construction of the "Tritech" technology, instead referencing claim chart exhibits that were not included with the complaint filing (Compl. ¶53, ¶70).
  • The complaint alleges that the accused products are direct competitors to Plaintiff's "Intex Products" and that their sale causes "significant marketplace harm" (Compl. ¶41).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts provided as Exhibits 6(b) and 6(c), which were not available for this analysis (Compl. ¶53, ¶70). The narrative infringement allegations in the complaint are conclusory, stating that Defendants infringe the asserted patents by making, using, and selling the Accused Products, which allegedly "embody claims in the Asserted Patents" (Compl. ¶36). The core of the infringement theory rests on the unseen claim charts.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Procedural Question: The primary point of contention is now procedural. Given that all asserted independent claims and most asserted dependent claims have been canceled via IPR, a threshold issue is whether Plaintiff can proceed with its case based on the single surviving asserted claim (claim 17 of the ’869 Patent) or if it must seek to amend its complaint to assert other surviving claims.
    • Technical Question: Assuming the case proceeds, the central technical dispute will likely concern whether the internal structure of the "Bestway Tritech™" products meets the specific limitations of the surviving claims. The name "Tritech" suggests a three-part technology, which may raise the question of whether this structure can be read onto claims that describe a "plurality of strands" that are "captured between" a pair of first and second weld sheets.
    • Scope Question: A key dispute may arise over the definition of a "plurality of strands," particularly whether the tensioning elements in the accused products are discrete, thread-like structures as shown in the patents, or if they are a more integrated web or fabric that might fall outside the scope of the term.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "plurality of strands"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central feature distinguishing the invention from the prior art's solid tension sheets. Its construction is critical to determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute will likely hinge on whether the tensioning elements in the accused "Tritech" airbeds are properly characterized as "strands."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the strands can be "strings or wires" (’869 Patent, Abstract) and may be made of "regular cotton, polyester, nylon thread" or "monofilament lines, metal wires or cables, plastic and the like" (’869 Patent, col. 9:65-col. 10:28), suggesting the term is not limited to a single material or type.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently depict the strands as discrete, thin, parallel lines (e.g., '869 Patent, Fig. 1, element 32). The specification also describes them as being "uniformly spaced apart and arranged substantially parallel to one another" (’869 Patent, col. 4:41-43), which could support a narrower construction that excludes woven or mesh-like fabrics.

  • The Term: "captured between the first and second weld sheets"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the specific "sandwich" structure for securing the strands. Infringement requires this configuration. The analysis will depend on whether the accused products secure their tensioning elements in a manner that meets this limitation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself could be argued to broadly cover any arrangement where strands are held in the space bounded by the two weld sheets.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly states that "strands 32 do not pierce weld strips 31, but are sandwiched between the respective pairs of weld strips 31" (’869 Patent, col. 9:26-29). The patent figures, such as Figure 10, clearly illustrate this sandwiching structure, which may support a narrower construction requiring the strands to be physically enclosed by the material of the two weld sheets after they are joined.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that the various Bestway entities induce infringement by "distributing or making available instructions or manuals for manufacturing the Accused Products, and/or providing technical support for doing the same" (Compl. ¶54, ¶57, ¶60). These allegations are made against the parent corporations as well as the U.S. distributor.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes detailed allegations to support willfulness. The asserted basis includes Defendants' alleged practice of actively monitoring competitors' intellectual property, a prior ITC investigation on related patents that allegedly put Defendants on notice of the patent family, alleged knowledge of the specific patent publications leading to the patents-in-suit, and receipt of a formal notice letter with claim charts before the suit was filed (Compl. ¶¶43-48).

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

  • A dispositive threshold question is one of case viability: following the cancellation of nearly all asserted claims in IPR proceedings, can the Plaintiff sustain its infringement action on the single surviving asserted claim (claim 17 of the '869 patent), or will it be required to amend its pleadings to assert other surviving claims to avoid dismissal?
  • A central technical question will be one of structural mapping: does the Defendants' "Tritech" internal support technology meet the specific limitations of the surviving patent claims, particularly the requirement of a "plurality of strands... captured between" a pair of weld sheets, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the components or their method of attachment?
  • A key evidentiary issue for damages and potential willfulness will be one of knowledge and intent: what was the effect of the prior ITC litigation and the pre-suit notice letter on Defendants' state of mind, and how will the subsequent cancellation of the patents' broadest claims impact the assessment of any alleged deliberate conduct?