DCT

2:16-cv-03300

Intex Recreation Corp v. Bestway USA Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:16-cv-03300, C.D. Cal., 05/13/2016
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants conducting regular business in the district and placing the accused products into the stream of commerce with the intent that they would be purchased by consumers within the Central District of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the manufacturing process for Defendant’s inflatable airbeds, marketed with "Comfort Cell Tech™," infringes patents related to methods for producing internal tensioning structures for inflatable devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns lightweight, high-tensile-strength internal support structures that prevent inflatable products like air mattresses from deforming under pressure, thereby creating a flatter and more stable surface.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of U.S. Patent 8,562,773 and the pending application that would become U.S. Patent 9,156,203 via a letter dated July 30, 2014. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2017-01397) resulted in the cancellation of claims 1, 3, and 4 of the '773 patent, including the sole claim asserted in this litigation, as confirmed by a certificate issued May 6, 2020.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-03-02 Earliest Priority Date for ’773 and ’203 Patents
2013-09-05 Publication of U.S. 2013/0228368 A1 ('773 Publication)
2013-10-22 U.S. Patent 8,562,773 Issue Date
2014-07-30 Intex sends pre-suit notice letter to Bestway
2014-11-13 Publication of U.S. 2014/0332139 A1 ('203 Application)
2015-10-13 U.S. Patent 9,156,203 Issue Date
2016-01-01 Alleged start of infringing conduct by Bestway (stated as "in 2016")
2016-05-13 Complaint Filing Date
2020-05-06 '773 Patent IPR Certificate issued, cancelling claims 1, 3, and 4

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,562,773 - Method of Producing an Internal Tensioning Structure Useable with Inflatable Devices

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that conventional internal tension bands in inflatable products were often made of thick, continuous PVC sheets. These structures were heavy, increased the folded volume of the deflated product, and could be costly. (’773 Patent, col. 1:53-col. 2:4).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for producing a tensioning structure that replaces heavy sheets with a plurality of lightweight, spaced-apart strands (e.g., threads) fixed between two or more plastic "weld strips." These strands provide high tensile strength to maintain the product's shape when inflated, while the plastic strips provide a surface that can be effectively welded to the main body of the inflatable product, such as an air mattress. (’773 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:50-col. 7:14; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This manufacturing method enabled the creation of internal supports that were significantly lighter and more compact when deflated, without sacrificing the structural integrity required for a flat, stable surface. (’773 Patent, col. 2:5-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶39).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • aligning a plurality of strands with a strand guide;
    • positioning a first weld strip adjacent to the plurality of strands;
    • positioning a second weld strip adjacent to the plurality of strands, with the strands positioned between the first and second weld strips;
    • positioning third and fourth weld strips adjacent to the plurality of strands and spaced apart from the first and second weld strips;
    • positioning the plurality of strands into a welder or adhesive device; and
    • activating the device to fixedly connect the first weld strip to the strands and couple the first/second and third/fourth weld strips together.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 9,156,203 - Method for Producing an Air Mattress

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to its parent, the ’203 Patent addresses the problem of heavy, bulky internal support structures in inflatable products like air mattresses. (’203 Patent, col. 1:54-col. 2:2).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent claims a comprehensive method for manufacturing an entire air mattress. The method involves providing the outer sheets (upper, lower, side wall) and incorporating specific internal tensioning structures. The core of this patented method is the step of providing a tensioning structure comprising a "tensile sheet" (which itself has a plurality of holes) and multiple weld strips that are positioned on opposite sides of the tensile sheet and welded together. (’203 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-51).
  • Technical Importance: The invention moves beyond claiming just the internal component and protects the end-to-end manufacturing process for a complete air mattress that uses this specific type of lightweight, strand-based internal support system.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶61).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • providing an upper sheet, a lower sheet, and a side wall of weldable plastic;
    • providing a plurality of tensioning structures, where each structure includes a tensile sheet with holes and four associated weld strips welded together with the tensile sheet in between;
    • welding the tensioning structures to the upper sheet;
    • welding the tensioning structures to the lower sheet;
    • creating an inflatable chamber by coupling the side wall to the upper and lower sheets; and
    • providing a valve for inflation and deflation.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are a line of Bestway-branded inflatable airbeds featuring "Comfort Cell Tech™". (Compl. ¶28). The complaint lists several specific models, including the New Comfort Raised, Premiere Plus Elevated, Night Rest, Sleep Zone Premium, and Sleep Essence series. (Compl. ¶28).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused products are manufactured using the inventive processes claimed in the asserted patents. (Compl. ¶¶ 27-28). The relevant technology is identified as "Bestway's Comfort Cell Tech™ high density mesh core," which allegedly serves as the internal tensioning structure. (Compl. ¶31). The complaint does not provide technical diagrams of the accused products' internal construction but alleges they are sold through major U.S. retailers such as K-Mart, Walmart, and Amazon.com. (Compl. ¶29).
    No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent 8,562,773 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
aligning a plurality of strands with a strand guide; The complaint alleges the method of making the Accused Products satisfies this limitation. ¶44(a) col. 11:10-24
positioning a first weld strip adjacent to the plurality of strands; The complaint alleges the method of making the Accused Products satisfies this limitation. ¶44(b) col. 11:50-54
positioning a second weld strip adjacent to the plurality of strands with the plurality of strands positioned between the first and second weld strips; The complaint alleges the method of making the Accused Products satisfies this limitation. ¶44(c) col. 12:20-31
positioning a third and fourth weld strips adjacent to the plurality of strands spaced apart from the first and second weld strips; The complaint alleges the method of making the Accused Products satisfies this limitation. ¶44(d) col. 17:46-50
positioning the plurality of strands into at least one of a welder and an adhesive device; The complaint alleges the method of making the Accused Products satisfies this limitation. ¶44(e) col. 11:30-44
activating the welder or adhesive device to fixedly connect the first weld strip to the plurality of strands and couple the first and second weld strips together and the third and fourth weld strips together. The complaint alleges the method of making the Accused Products satisfies this limitation. ¶44(f) col. 17:54-col. 18:4
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Validity Question: The most significant issue is that Claim 1 of the ’773 Patent, the only claim asserted, was cancelled in an IPR proceeding after the complaint was filed. This raises a fundamental question about the viability of this entire count of infringement.
    • Technical Question: Assuming the claim were valid, a key dispute would concern whether the manufacturing process for Bestway's "Comfort Cell Tech™" performs the specific sequence of positioning four distinct weld strips and activating a welder in the manner required by the claim. The complaint lacks specific evidence detailing Bestway's actual manufacturing process.

U.S. Patent 9,156,203 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
providing an upper sheet made of weldable plastic; The complaint alleges the method of making the Accused Products satisfies this limitation. ¶66(a) col. 7:41-45
providing a lower sheet made of weldable plastic; The complaint alleges the method of making the Accused Products satisfies this limitation. ¶66(b) col. 7:46-50
providing a side wall made of weldable plastic; The complaint alleges the method of making the Accused Products satisfies this limitation. ¶66(c) col. 7:51-53
providing a plurality of tensioning structures, each tensioning structure including at least one tensile sheet having a first side, a second side, and plurality of holes extending through the tensile sheet...and a plurality of weld strips including a first weld strip...a second weld strip...the first and second weld strips welded together with said tensile sheet positioned between the first and second strips, a third weld strip...and a fourth weld strip...the third and fourth weld strips welded together... The complaint alleges the method of making the Accused Products satisfies this limitation. ¶66(d) col. 2:35-51
welding the plurality of tensioning structures to the upper sheet by welding at least one of the first and second weld strips to the upper sheet; The complaint alleges the method of making the Accused Products satisfies this limitation. ¶66(e) col. 3:9-12
welding the plurality of tensioning structures to the lower sheet by welding at least one of the third and fourth weld strips to the lower sheet; The complaint alleges the method of making the Accused Products satisfies this limitation. ¶66(f) col. 3:12-15
creating an inflatable chamber defined by the upper sheet, lower sheet, and side wall by the steps of coupling the side wall to the upper sheet, and coupling the side wall to the lower sheet; The complaint alleges the method of making the Accused Products satisfies this limitation. ¶66(g) col. 3:16-20
providing a valve in communication with the inflatable chamber to facilitate inflation and deflation of the air mattress. The complaint alleges the method of making the Accused Products satisfies this limitation. ¶66(h) col. 3:20-24
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Question: A dispute may arise over whether Bestway's "high density mesh core" constitutes a "tensile sheet having...a plurality of holes" as defined in the patent. The construction of "tensile sheet" will be critical to determining if a mesh-like structure falls within the claim's scope.
    • Evidentiary Question: Because this is a method claim, Plaintiff must prove that Defendant performs every step of the claimed manufacturing process. The complaint makes conclusory allegations without providing specific evidence (e.g., from factory inspections, internal documents, or reverse engineering of the process) of how the accused products are actually assembled.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "tensile sheet" (from '203 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the infringement analysis for the ’203 Patent. The case may turn on whether Bestway's "high density mesh core" is properly characterized as a "tensile sheet" under the patent's definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the patented invention from both prior art solid sheets and potentially from the accused product's specific structure.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the related ’773 patent, incorporated by reference, states that a non-woven fabric can form the tensioning structure and that strands may be woven together to form a fabric. (’773 Patent, col. 9:1-5). The '203 patent itself describes the tensile sheet as being formed from "spaced-apart strands" which could support an interpretation that a mesh-like structure is a type of "tensile sheet." (’203 Patent, col. 1:13-17).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment shown in the figures common to both patents depicts discrete, parallel strands (32) rather than an interwoven mesh. (’203 Patent, Fig. 1). A defendant could argue that a "tensile sheet" as used in the patent requires this specific arrangement of parallel strands, and that a different structure, such as a true mesh, falls outside that definition.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induced infringement by providing instructions, manuals, and technical support for manufacturing the accused products. (Compl. ¶¶ 45, 67). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating that Defendants sell or offer to sell a material component (the tensioning structure) that is especially made for practicing the patented methods and is not a staple article of commerce capable of substantial noninfringing uses. (Compl. ¶¶ 46, 68).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been willful and deliberate based on pre-suit knowledge of the patents. (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 80). The basis for this allegation is a July 30, 2014 notice letter sent from Intex to Bestway-USA, which identified the '773 Patent and the pending application for the '203 Patent, and explained their relevance to Bestway's "Comfort Cell Tech™" products. (Compl. ¶31). The complaint also alleges on information and belief that Bestway monitored Intex's patent filings. (Compl. ¶33).

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

  1. Patent Viability: A threshold question for Count I is whether any claim for infringement of the ’773 Patent can proceed, given that the sole asserted claim, Claim 1, was cancelled in a post-filing Inter Partes Review.
  2. Claim Scope and Evidentiary Proof: For the ’203 Patent, a central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "tensile sheet having...a plurality of holes," which is described in the context of parallel strands, be construed to read on the "high density mesh core" used in the accused products? This is coupled with a key evidentiary question: can the plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to prove that the defendants’ overseas manufacturing facilities actually perform every step of the asserted method claim?
  3. Willfulness and Damages: Should infringement be found, a critical question will be whether the defendants' conduct was willful. The determination will likely depend on the specific actions, if any, the defendants took to assess infringement after receiving the explicit pre-suit notice letter from the plaintiff in 2014.